The Planned Society - A New Approach To This Argument
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Okay.
I encourage people to start by watching this video at the 24 minute mark.
Listen as he goes from explaining a Carol Quigley quote to reading for you a huge excerpt from a US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare funded study, "The Behavorial Science Research Education Program" from 1969. "Strain the democratic process to the ripping point"?
Wow.
Now.
Instead of getting all whacked out "conspiracy nut" style, can we at least have a calm discussion about the seemingly prophetic vision of "these people" from at least as far back at the 60's?
Please actualy watch that segment.
Its only about 5 minute, starting around the 24 minute mark.
Does it sound innocent,
or does it sound like A Brave New World, to you?
I encourage people to start by watching this video at the 24 minute mark.
Listen as he goes from explaining a Carol Quigley quote to reading for you a huge excerpt from a US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare funded study, "The Behavorial Science Research Education Program" from 1969. "Strain the democratic process to the ripping point"?
Wow.
Now.
Instead of getting all whacked out "conspiracy nut" style, can we at least have a calm discussion about the seemingly prophetic vision of "these people" from at least as far back at the 60's?
Please actualy watch that segment.
Its only about 5 minute, starting around the 24 minute mark.
Does it sound innocent,
or does it sound like A Brave New World, to you?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
How is a quote from a US Agency study "theory", anyhow?
Thats the government itself telling you, "we are dumbing you down, drugging you up, and stealing your liberty. We will plan your life. We will bombard you with propaganda. You will submit."
Did you listen to it?
I did say to watch it first.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Thats not even alex jones speaking.
?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It sounded brave new world to us for sure.
Masterframer i understand your aversion to Alex Jones he makes me cringe at times, but this clip was not him speaking so i don't understand where your coming from on this.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
If what he says is true, well then the HEW hired some weird people to do their research in the 60s. All the "prophecies" are pretty vague, and actually not that hard to think of in advance (which i guess they were paid to do in making this study). But hyperboling from what a specific study in the 60s said about likely societal developments, to using it as a proof that "they" are indeed in total control and have implemented this "master plan" over the decades, is really stretching.
And he really does himself a disservice when continuing to ramble on that "they" caused ww1 and ww2 with the UN being the sole purpose, so that the UN now can implement environmental regulations?? (And we have already seen how well the UN can make them happen with nations that dont wanna (ie Kyoto).) I mean, come on! Wake up yourself. The UN can do exactly what the mighty nations it consists of want to do and nothing else. Which is pretty much why the UN is completely powerless unless when it is convenient for one of the bigger nations to do something. (Like which broken security council treaties have war as a consequence *cough*Iraq*cough* and which is irrelevant.) The UN was a US tool for the first decade or so, and strangely concidental with the US no longer dictating the UN (USSR and China becoming full members, and able to veto), americans started disliking and distrusting it
Bottomline here, is that, yes that study from the 60s sounds whacked out. Is it a blueprint for what was to happen, most likely not. There are probably houndreds of governmental studies in the 60s alone that adresses these concerns, and most likely have other conclusions and wording. Digging up the one that sounds on the money today, doesnt mean it's "prophetic".
And as a general remark, the economies and countries worldwide were "planned" for a long while after the war during reconstruction. Scarcity of goods and materials will do that to a political economy.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The thing is, Dan, i'm starting to find dozens of these types of quotes.
I've been trying to plow through The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt (its a free download at her website of the same name too!) ... and in those 700 pages are quote after quote after quote after quote pretty conclusively tying it all together ... showing you that this is deliberate and planned as can be.
The fact that there is still US resistance to the total loss of soverignty (which is what your argument about the UN seems to be getting at) only shows that the true aims of these elitists (when visible enough to fight) are not accepted by the American public (or by the honest policy makers, the good guys in congress) and are rejected.
The argument that China and Russia assuming power in the UN is somehow a sign that it is not a plan is actualy an ass backwards argument if you've been listening the argument -- which fundamentaly is that the elitists would much prefer for the Chinese model to win out!
Again, you never addressed Rockefeller's quote about being in love with Mao Zedong, did you?
So.
The bottom line is, to further their goals at this point, outside of a huge incident of terror and a monitary collapse, the BIGGEST thing they realy have going is control of the school systems. Why is that the biggest thing they have going?
Because once they have suceeded in making every child so stupid, manipulable, and agreeable to their agenda, there will by definition be no more resistance to their agenda.
If you can reshape and reteach humanity to be the change you seek, the resistance inherently dissolves.
I emplore you to dig in to Deliberate Dumbing Down, just a smidge at least.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Just to clarify, i think you are talking about Endgame, itself, not Endgame 1.5.
And you are right.
Endgame, the actual movie, does get infinitely more interesting after the first hour of Alex pretty much just preaching from a bullhorn on a sidewalk outside of the conference. The rest of the movie after that is incredible, actualy.
Endgame 1.5, on the other hand is dry as lead paint in the sun and never gets interesting. In fact, the first 30-45 minutes are probably the only parts with real intellectual value ... the back half is mostly just stuff that was deleted for good reason (i mean watching an argument with cops in the rain is fun, but doesn't add much to the knowledge base) ... but the first 45 minutes has some amazing extra info in it, at least.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sorry thought it was, Says Alex Jones in the title. I'd still rather have a root canal.
I do have 1.5 too and watched the first part, but found the rest of it quite boring. As you say it was left out for good reason.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
If you have been paying any attention, you see this resistance to central supernational control is pretty common worldwide. You'll find a large amount of socialists on the frontrows against it too, perhaps even the most vocal several places.
My point is that US general attitude significantly shifted, when the UN stopped being the plaything of the US and allies. You assume they work together of course, as they must if the conspiracy is to be viable.
I dont see the significance, other than proving that said Rockefeller is a fan of authoritarianism. It doesnt become damning evidence unless I buy the whole ideological package and hearsays you're pushing.
Completely speculation here in which I dont even accept the basic premise, namely "their" total control.
So where do all these protesters and dissidents, like yourself I might add, come from?
Are you even aware how impossible such a task even is? The world is changing all the time, as do people's interpetation and perspective of it. So a change does not necessarily, and actually most likely doesn't mean, that some covert force succeeded in their diabolical mission. It means times have changed, and conditions are different and people are getting other experiences shaping their lives. And I'm not talking about "the conspiracy" shaping things, I'm talking about huge population growth, the information revolution, the consequences of having to live tighter tiogether than ever before, that sort of thing.
And as you're frequently referencing fiction in your posts, may I add that I too enjoy reading sci-fi and future dystopias. But that kind of literature often demands some sort of fait accompli at the start, and a deus ex machina to keep it viable. In "Brave New World", the system is already in place without any friction, and is maintained by the utopian perfect drug of soma. These books are not prophetical in any way, but they do take some tendencies of a time and draw them all out. But some time later you see they werent right because an action has a reaction also in human organizing, and unforeseen events happen all the time. Vonnegut's "Player Piano" makes dangerously sense in a post world-war 2 setting, but looks silly now that computers and about 40 years of history happened.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Dan your complete argument always seems to be reducible to two tenants:
1. The nature of the human experience is the driving force of all change, and is an organic process incapable of being subverted.
2. The very fact that there are "resisters" to this "conspiracy theory" is somehow proof that such a conspiracy doesn't exist.
Now.
What you fail to recognize is that what is being done here is not a complete subversion of the natural progression of history but a manipulation done under the guise of hurrying along such "needed" change.
While i am loathe to start talking about philosophy, maybe it bares fruit to dig up something from the first few pages of Iserbyt's book regarding one of the change mechanisms:
The Hegelian Dialectic, which is (hey this is all new to me, too) process originated by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and coopted by Karl Marx in establishing the foothold of communism, goes something like this --
[From the book directly, now]
The "Thesis" represents either an established practice or point of view which is pitted against the "Antithesis" - usually a crisis of opposition fabricated or created by the change agents - causig teh "Thesis" to compromise itself, incorporating some part of the "Antithesis" to produce the "Synthesis" -- sometimes called consensus. [end quote]
Now. She also notes early on that this is one of the processes directly applied IN the schools itself, conditioning children to throw away the idea of concrete right and wrong and to always look for "consensus". Hmm.
But here is an applied example from the book:
So. You see it is a very slick and manipulative process that takes the form of what appears to be innocent self interest upon the "peoples" part. However time and time again, the crisis is a fabrication (the deliberate raising of local budgets\taxes in this case). And the point you fail to really grasp is that the institutionalized changes that you call organic reactions are really changes manipulated at the highest levels by the elite, who have commissioned the very educational policies themselves, coopted the research facilities, print the books for educating the educators, conduct teacher training seminars that simply reprogram the teachers themselves, etc. The end result of this is you have, as you say, "a change of times\conditions\sentiment", yet the change was NOT organic, it was coerced through social engineering.
Also your other assumption is that because there are people who do not accept the tenants of the elite, that the elite must not be suceeding in their goals. Well that is just silly. There were plenty in Germany who resisted Hitlers rise to power, but he certainly suceeded in that rise. Right?
Now. Will they be ULTIMATELY sucessful in accomplishing "One World Government"?
Only time will tell. But i WILL say this, simply assuming that the world will reject it is a silly notion. As time goes by, and the social engineers they have funded continue to manipulate the very fabric of the human experience (again, that quote that you dismiss from the movie is CLEAR evidence of htis intent) ... as that process takes hold, the resistance you speak of will become as sparse as Neo and Morpheus in the Matrix. A small handfull against an infinite supply of willfully ignorant masses (actualy, at some point it is no longer willfull, it is the direct result of conditioning) and also an extremely well armed establishment.
Again,
ask yourself what the people of the United States specificaly will do if their is a massive terrorist incident in the next few years, coupled with a total economic collapse.
The economic part is looking nearly destined at this point. Even CNBC is talking about it as an inevitability in some of their programing.
So, do you really think "the masses" are all that strong and independent, or do you think they would be more than eager to swallow some massive "new deal" that gives the government pretty tight control of the resource base and policy setting, if they thought that this was the best way to get "back on our feet"?
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
At a very high level consistently and disciplined over generations with a single purpose? That's the highly unlikely part.
That is actually not new to a master of sociology graduate...
Why is this Iserbyt such an authority on this? That is a fairly controversial interpretation and use of hegelian dialectics actually. To expand, Hegel uses it as ana nalytical tool by setting up two opposites to find a middle ground of synthesis that can unite parts from each. Marx uses it as a strictly historical analytical device in order to make sense of prior history, and couples it with his position of historical materialism. The use of hegelian dialectics as an active device to foster change, I have never heard of except from these grand conspiracy folks.
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who'd rather see bible classes in school to teach "right and wrong". God forbid that children are actually taught to think for themselves and seeing different sides of issues.
As for the "shocking" response by teachers and whatnot:
"When asked to write a paper expressing our views on the goals of education, I wrote that, amongst other goals, I felt the schools should strive to instill "sound morals and values in the students." The superintendent and a few teachers on the committee zeroed in on me, asking "What's the definition of 'sound' and whose values?""
I thought that question was pretty justified. She also have a love affair with home schooling (probably since you then can teach as much morals as you like).
The only thing she shows is that the US public school system is being underfunded and neglected. Which may very well be the case. But that does not necessitate a conspiracy of immoral school president "change agents", which she seems to prefer as an explanation.
You put that assumption in my mouth where I dont use it. When I talk about the resistance, that's mostly to counter the sense I get from you that only AJ and other enlightened individuals like yourself are aware of problems in that regard.
Again, I dont accept the premise which is their (near) total control of the situation.
Speculation is nice isn't it?
But your fears seem to be totally misplaced most of the time. Kinda like the military that is always prepared for the last war, you're still fearing the totalitarian nazi state, when that is really over and done with as an overhanging possibility.
The main point is, I still havent seen any evidence that a conspiracy is undoubtedly happening. It's not enough to quote some philosophy to show it happens, neither is it enough to quote some rich guy at some point who said something. And actually reading documents from the 60s "like the devil reads the bible" (dont know if you're familiar with the expression) and treating it like blueprints and master plans is ridiculous. So far my knowledge of human action, human organization and insititutions both as I have experienced, learned and read theories of goes against this conspiracy of yours. Corruption happens, yes. Elites protect their interests (like all people), yes. Problematic at times, certainly. Conspiratorial, at times yes. The super-conspiracy that has been going for centuries and can be easily traced to elitist right-wing fear of the emerging working class, and which is somehow masterminding a new worldwide police state through the machinations of the UN, highly unlikely. Such a theory has a huge burden of proof, and I have yet to see some solid evidence here.
I will repeat to you here the question I made in the other thread, when it comes to research and sources:
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965