With that being said, Paul, I think that you have some great ideas, but they don't take into account the possible scope of these things.
Correct me if I have interpreted your wrongly, but I think that you are meaning to say that the scope of secret societies, and some of the issues that we are discussing, could be much bigger then I think.
My response to that is that you may be right, or you may be totally wrong,
and that is the problem. As of right now, we do not know the scope of how merged together business and government leadership is, or how much the public is actually being manipulated by the leadership, or what the agenda is, or if there is even one focused agenda. All we can do is theorize because a lot of public policy is decided behind the eyes of the public. The reality is, there may not be any manipulation or "foul play" at all (although, this would be very hard for me to believe), or we may be completely controlled by an illumanti without even knowing it (also, very hard for me believe). I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but even that can't be known for sure.
And, WHY don't we know these things for sure? We don't know them for sure because we continue to allow conflicts of interest to occur between government and corporate entities, and we continue to let public policy to be decided in "secret". The whole point of it being secret is that we are not able to know for sure. Then, it is very easy to manipulate the public into believing that if you ask any questions "outside of the box" then you must be a "liberal" or a "conspiricy nut" or a "militia man" or whatever negative label that can be doled out to prevent the majority from wanting to think outside of the dialectic at all.
So, I don't know the scope of these things for sure, even though I have theories. A first step that I would like to see, though, is that the public policy making be actually put out in "the public" where it belongs, so we can find out.
Now, my personal feelings so far (and I am learning more and more every day) is that I don't follow what most of the "conspiricy nuts" are saying. Most people who write publications and discuss these issues seem to believe that there is a grand scheme that has been going on, and that we are all being manipulated to achieve the goal of total control by the grand schemers. Some believe that its marxism gone wild, others believe that it is secret societies that are in control, some believe that its the republican agenda, others the "liberal" agenda, and the list goes on. I don't believe that there is a "grand scheme" at all.
The reason that I don't believe in a "grand scheme" is because I think that the idea is too complicated when you try to apply it; and especially if you try to apply it over many generations. I think conspiricy theorists are way off base with this one. What I do believe is that people are ultimatily selfish, unless they adhere to a higher moral authority of some kind to not be selfish. Because people are selfish, they are going to do what is within their best interest 1st, and what is best for everybody else second. Most people, including business people and policy makers try to have their cake and eat it too. For example, maybe they make that decision in congress that helps the insurance companies that they get $$ and campaign support in different forms from, for example, with a logic that will justify that it will help the people in the long run (even when it is clear to others who aren't attatched to that interest that the decision will hurt people in the long run). Or, they make comprimises, making a decision to go against the good of the people because they don't want to risk bad PR from a large entity, with the logic that at least they will be around to fight another day, and do other things for the good of the people. It is a constant securing of their own self-interest first.
So, when people are interested in securing their self-interest first, then they are going to do a lot of back scratching to get their, follwing the reciprocity rule of business. They are going to knowingly make bad decisions, justifying that it is for "a greater good." They are going to join clubs, and network among influential people like themselves to secure their own interests. They are going to plan and scheme policy that will help them and their interest first. This is the selfish behavior that I believe most people exhibit.
What goes hand and hand with this selfish behavior is handling the guilt that ultimitally comes with it. This is where the need to justify their behavior comes in. This justification comes through moral philosephies, religious ideas, and even cultic behavior in cases we have mentioned. Ideas like, "People ultimatily can't make the best decisions from themselves," stems through this justifying process. I think that these secret societies come to play as a means to justify elitism and selfishness. And, I think that this behavior has been going on in one form or another for hundreds of years.
Now, the end result may be something that looks like a "grand scheme," but I don't think that it is that organized. Certian results, such as the fascist democracy that we live in now, are a product of this elitism. The constant merging of companies creating unfair competition is a product of these special interests merging together as well. And, if we allow unilateral, elite control to continue, then there may be other results that are even worse then a fascist democracy.
To prevent minority control of the majority (minority not being a race but a class), our constitution was "fixed" by our forefathers. Our government is supposed to prevent a dictatorship or the rule by a small ruling class by ensuring that we retain certain rights. The dynamics have changed so much since our original constitiution, that we now have a major dillema that we have never had before. That delima is we are endanger of being ruled by a fascist dictatorship WITHIN THE VERY RULES THAT WE HAVE CREATED.
On Kusinich: I have liked some of the things that Kusinich has said in the past, but your account of him preaching of a NWO is very frightening to me. A NWO where we are all ruled by one government is NOT a good thing at all. We seem to be moving in that direction with the U.S. being a unilateral power, but I hope we never see that "vision." The reason a NWO is not a good thing is because it won't be the case where everyone is ruled by one big happy democracy like Kusinich is expressing. Part of what allows us to be free is the fact that if I don't like the U.S., I can go somewhere else. If the U.S. (or any country) try's to oppress a group of people, then other countries can step in and say "no you don't". This is supposed to work in theory, but hasn't since we became a unilateral power. One world government means "totalitarian rule." One world government means that the rights of an individual can be compromised if it is for the good of the "state" (in which case, this would be "the world".) In the case of a true world government, you could see all the breakdowns of individual freedoms, and there would be nothng to stop us from being ruled by a small ruling class through military force.
I would never vote for anyone who wants an NWO. Also, the Dollar analogy seems to freighteningly fit in with "secret society" philosophy. Very strange.
PAUL
