Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
That describes Donald Trump to a T.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are the élites?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
That describes Donald Trump to a T.
We have had a Prime Minister whose surname means dragons.
Former Goldman Sachs banker and former ECB banker.
Some quotes: Sometimes ECB bankers use their own heart too (addressing to the Parliament)
Cossiga, former President said about him: he is a vile businessman, the one who undersold the State's assets on the Britannia yacht.
Last edited:
There are wealthy people who seem content with what they have, and they don't seem obsessed with wanting more money or power. Then there are those who don't appear content and want more and more, for whatever reason.
I guess one can draw a distinction between what constitutes "elite" as opposed to someone who might be a "leader." Both might come from the same class, but with different values and personality types. We can consider questions such as, why did the elites of Ancient Rome hate Caesar so much, while the common people loved him?
I recall Marlon Brando's speech in the movie The Formula: "Human beings, my friend, are a very complex paradox. Very, very dangerous. They don't wanna' be leaders, they wanna' be followers. I mean, they... they can't wait to find some nut, who they think is just wonderful, to tell them what to do. And they all wanna' be brought under control. And some of that awesome burden has fallen on my sagging shoulders. I didn't ask for it, and I don't enjoy it, but I accept it... because I have a strong sense of duty."
So, the central attitude seems one of hubris and a feeling of superiority, coupled with a deep, underlying fear of what could happen if they lose positive control over the masses.
As a result, there are some at an elite level who ostensibly understand this and advocate policies which are beneficial to the people and designed to keep them content, in order to maintain positive control and retain their positions of wealth and power. Unfortunately, there have been times and places throughout history where the elite apparently didn't understand this very well and ended up in the crapper. Some elite, such as the Romanovs, the Hapsburgs, and the Hohenzollerns, had to learn the hard way - just as Cato, Cicero, and Pompey did, once upon a time. Likewise, the House of Bourbon went down ignominiously as well.
Regarding the elite in modern times, regardless of how they're defined or who they actually might be, I would also wonder just how much they've studied history and whether or not they've actually learned anything from their predecessors' mistakes.
The funny thing is, during good times, nobody really cares who "the elite" actually are - just as long as they keep running things right.
It's when things go sour, that's when people start to ask questions like "Who's running this show anyway?" That's when so-called "conspiracy theories" start cropping up.
I view conspiracy theories as merely indicators that there is some measure of dissatisfaction and discontent among the masses. It's not something to panic about.
However, there are those who do seem to panic in the face of conspiracy theories. In recent decades, I've noticed more than a few people who have apparently made it their life's mission to challenge, oppose, refute, and rebuke each and every conspiracy theorist on the planet, doing so with such strident, intense zeal. They seem upset and even threatened by conspiracy theories and feel a need to respond and castigate anyone espousing a conspiracy theory, in an attempt to discredit such theories and discourage their propagation.
As an agnostic, I tend to leave these questions somewhat open-ended. However, I'm capable of recognizing unhappiness when I see it, and people who put forth conspiracy theories are, in essence, expressing their unhappiness with a certain situation. However poorly-conceived or poorly-constructed their conspiracy theories might be, I think the more important thing is to explore the source of the people's unhappiness and why they feel the need to resort to conspiracy theories or possibly even extremist politics.
But for whatever reason, there are those who don't want to do that. They don't really care why some people might be unhappy, so they just want to go around browbeating people with "don't worry, be happy." If this attitude is reflective of the attitude of the "elite" (whoever or whatever they might be), then I would say that the world is in for some interesting times in the not-too-distant future.
I am an educated person, I have a law degree.
Before getting an education, that is reading several books of Banking Law and Macroeconomics, I used to be very critical towards the so called conspiracy theorists. I thought they were just people who wanted to sell books.
Yes...I was very skeptical.
Then I studied Banking Law and Macroeconomics. And I found out that there is a conspiracy set out by banking dynasties that stole the Seigniorage from the nations.
I can demonstrate it in any penal court, whether it is national or international.
Not all conspiracies are just theoretical.
Some are factual...horribly factual.
Those whom you describe are not political elites. They are honest governors.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Are you saying that governors are not part of the political elite…? I’m not sure I feel that makes much sense (to me).
Humbly,
Hermit
I have clearly stated what elites are. Etymologically it means the one who claim to be the chosen ones.
This reminds me very much of definitions &
characterizations that religious folk use to paint
heathens, Satanists, & liberals as evil foes.
It would be useful for you to make your definition
less agenda laden.
I'm not dealing with fault finding.
However, your definition is less general than
it could be. It focuses upon capitalists, but it
ignores socialist "elites", eg, Stalin, Pol Pot,
Mao, Castro, Kim Jong Un.
And don't forget...Putin is about as "elite" as
one can get (even under your definition).
BTW, your "tail of straw" idiom/metaphor is
too strange a thing to commit to memory.
I've tried. It doesn't stick.
Last edited:
I can't speak for Russians.
I can speak of my own country. Il Duce, for example, fought the "élites". He banned Freemasonry.
That is why he was an intolerant dictator. But certainly not "élite".
Last edited:
I respect that. I don't have anything against conspiracy theorists, and in my limited studies of history and how we've gotten to this point, I've encountered the same familiar patterns which would confirm the basic truisms that "power corrupts" and "money is the root of all evil." Power and greed. It's a constant throughout history, although with many variables as well, along some rather interesting and colorful figures along the way, both good and evil - and everything in between.
It's for this reason that I don't really doubt that there's a lot of crooks and miscreants in positions of power in this world, regardless of where that power might be, whether it's in the banks, the Church, the corporations, or whatever the case might be. Of course, there might be some good people among them, too. Some world leaders have turned out okay, but it seems clear that, the current crop of movers and shakers in this world have done a bad job of it.
Ultimately, "power" is just a social construct. It doesn't work unless people believe in it, either through the carrot or the stick. It's an old game, but it's had to be made more and more complicated due to the complexities brought about through the advancements and changes in society and world civilization these past couple of centuries. 1000 years ago, the elites had a much easier time managing the peasants when they were just a bunch of ignorant dirt farmers. But fast forward to the industrial era, with crowded cities filled with millions of proles toiling away in sweatshops and living in crowded tenements, while a short distance away, a few wealthy elite are living in mansions. It's much more difficult to keep them under control.
As for conspiracy theories, I don't necessarily dismiss them out of hand. I look at them on a case-by-case basis and consider them food for thought without making any firm commitment to believe or disbelieve. I also look at the counter-arguments as well. If nothing else, I like seeing an exchange of ideas and a meeting of minds between people of opposing viewpoints. It's through such processes that great ideas can be formulated.
For me, the bottom line is that, ultimately, power is what it is, this is the place we're living, and society operates under some form of nominal, secular "government" made up of fallible human beings who have the same flaws and weaknesses as anyone else. Whatever kind of crooked activity goes on behind the scenes at the upper levels in the hierarchy seems to fall in line with the same basic constants seen throughout history. There may be corruption, manipulation, coercion, political shenanigans, legal trickery, and all kinds of other malfeasance. I don't really doubt that such things go on.
But they're still faced with the same problem that any leader in any society has to face. The common people outnumber them. They know that if they don't keep the people happy, the people will turn against them. They can do it through deception, bread and circuses, or any number of other ways, but that's always been the great challenge.
From what you're saying, I get the sense that the bankers want to control society, that they run things. The trouble is, they don't seem to know how to do it. They may be excellent at banking and good at that job, but trying to run whole societies and manage populations and keep them under positive control - that's a completely different function for which they are ill-suited. I think the current situation in the world would demonstrate that they've done a botched job of it, even despite whatever massive wealth they might crow about acquiring in the process.
We're on a dying planet, overheating, overpopulated, and running out of resources, facing war and the threat of nuclear escalation, and the bozos who have been in charge of this mess don't have the faintest clue as to what do about it. That's no conspiracy theory, but that appears to be the way things are at present. Conspiracy theories are one thing, but "boogieman theories" can also be questionable, such as "it's all Trump's fault" or "it's all Putin's fault" for whatever maladies the world is facing right now.
It's really everybody's fault. But it's easier and sometimes more fun to blame someone else, some "boogieman" or "other," which can get even worse.
The solution, in my view, is this: I favor a pacifist, non-violent, world-wide socialist revolution in which right-thinking people use reason, logic, and forbearance to convince the greedy capitalists to stop being so greedy and malicious and to start thinking of their fellow human beings. Soon, they will see that they have been wrong, and they will change their ways, and the world will also change.
And if that doesn't work, then...well...things may take a different turn.
The West is a victim.
Because of overpopulation, we are undergoing all the challenges of the 21st century.
Italy has the lowest birth rates in the world, probably.
European population has risen by 10%...there are countries whose population has decupled in few decades.
And Europeans are the ones producing the most in the old continent.
We are undergoing.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Apologies Estro Felino,
I thought that you were sharing your interpretation of the use of the term within politics; not simply ‘clearly stating’ to us what the elite “is”.
The latter, however, leaves no real room for others to share their thoughts with you, so I am a little puzzled as to why you asked for ours in your OP?
Humbly,
Hermit
I wanted to debate respectfully.
What do you think of this woman. She is the future Prime Minister of Italy. She makes me so proud.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Respectfully, I cannot give you my opinion on your future prime minister based on … whatever that strange clip was meant to be(?).
She does say in there: “since saying the truth yesterday…”; what truth is it that she claim to have told you? What of what she said “yesterday” is upsetting people? That may be more telling, perhaps.
Humbly,
Hermit
They have a problem with fishmongers? I guess that's a common put-down, especially among elites and their wannabes. Their favorite go-to put-down is to say that someone has a lower job, like flipping burgers, fishmonger, janitor, whatever - as if they view such jobs as beneath them.
What are her agendas?
They called her fishmonger because she is outspoken, loud and she was born within an humble family of a working class district of Rome. Rome suburbs to be precise.
It's a way in Roman dialect to insult the people whom one considers beneath them.
Leftist intellectuals look down and despise commoners, and Giorgia is a commoner,
That is why the lounge-loving Left miserably lost the Italian elections.
The truth is basically that the Left couldn't care less about the people's welfare.