5 Pathetic Groups That People Think Rule the World

I searched to see if anyone had posted this yet and to my surprise did not find the article.

www.cracked.com...

You can see #4-1 by clicking on the link above.

Oh, look, they made another Dan Brown movie at some point. Angels & Demons deals with the deep dark secret organization, The Illuminati, and their attempts to control the world, which means you're probably going to be hearing a lot about that in the next few months on certain, paranoid websites.

Yes, wide-ranging conspiracy theories aren't limited to pulp novels reenacted by a terrible Tom Hanks haircut. YouTube and Digg comments and countless blogs are full of people ranting about the secret elite who are out to enslave all of us.

They have a lot of reasons for believing the following groups are the guilty parties behind everything wrong with the world, and most of those reasons are very, very retarded.
#5.
The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Conference

"We know you are ruthless. We know you are evil. We respect your dark power."

-Radio talk show host Alex Jones, shouting into a bullhorn outside a Bilderberg meeting.

Who Are They?

You'll hear both of these come up during any hour of conspiracy talk radio. These are two separate, private groups of powerful men (some of them probably Jews!) who like to meet and talk about the state of the world, kind of like how guys will gather at the bar and talk about what the Yankees should do with their pitching rotation.

The Trilateral Commission is a club consisting of a few hundred rich guys from around the world, started by David Rockefeller in the early 70s in order to "foster closer relations" between America, Europe and Japan. And to bone hot ladies from distant lands. Probably.

The Bilderberg Conference or "Bilderbergers" are a different group of influential guys from America and Europe who meet once a year in fancy hotels, and they've been doing it since 1954. There are a little more than 100 members and prominent politicians are known to have shown up at their meetings. By the way, they're called "Bilderbergers" because "Bilderberg" was the name of the first hotel where they met. So a small change in plans could have led them to being called the Best Westerners.


Look at these guys, they're awesome. We'd totally let them rule the world.

Who Thinks They Control the World?

Former Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed the Trilateral Commission was planning something nefarious, and so does the John Birch Society. There have been books written on the subject, as well as articles in several magazines, including U.S. News and World Report and Penthouse, where paragraph after paragraph on this dark organization rubbed up against some huge, fake titties.

Meanwhile, Daniel Estulin's book on the Bilderberg group is currently number one on Amazon's bestselling conspiracy theory book list.

Why People Believe It:

The Trilateral Commission first appeared on the conspiracy community's radar in 1976, when freshly elected Trilateralist Jimmy Carter filled his cabinet with 26 other members of the organization. Since then, every single administration has had Trilateralists in some of its highest positions.

The Bilderbergers are more secretive about their meetings, so in their case the paranoid are simply filling in the information void. If they won't tell us why they're meeting, they must be orchestrating a worldwide takeover, right?

Why it's Retarded:

The underlying claim behind both is that these groups of wealthy men have been working to create the infamous One-World Government that you'll see pop up in most of these conspiracy theories. They want a totalitarian regime that will enslave all of mankind, all at once.

Of course these guys have had decades to establish their plan, but instead they apparently opted for plan B, One-World Cluster****. Europe hates America; the Middle East is more ****** than a German whore on coupon day; all China cares about is exporting delicious lead paint; and North Korea is still run by that crazy ****** with the big granny glasses. It's almost as if the result of their "one-world government" conspiracy looks exactly like the random chaos of geopolitical events we've seen for the last few thousand years.


"We've got them right where we want them."

Don't get us wrong; we suspect both of these groups would like to rule the world (so would we, in fact). But in the grand scheme of political and economic power worldwide, a few hundred important guys basically amount to a fart at a Motorhead concert. It's too much to assume that even within the groups that there is agreement about what the Master Plan should look like, since they're made up of people from different countries, political parties and competing corporations.

But what conspiracy buffs are doing is taking any world event and retroactively declaring it to all be part of the Secret Plan. Economy booming? Of course, that's part of the secret plan to make the corporations control all wealth. Economy collapsing? Of course, that's part of the secret plan to destroy capitalism.

If it rains, it's because the Trilateralists want a flood. If it doesn't, it's because they want drought. And both are held up as proof after the fact, so as far as they're concerned, they've got proof out the ass.


[edit on 1-9-2009 by edgecrusher2199]

well posted propaganda.

Because, afterall, why would anyone link the trilaterals to power?

Wow. After clicking on the link, I can't help but make another comment. Just wow. Was this published by the Disinfo branch of the CIA?

Pure garbage disinformation and propaganda.

The author CLEARLY has no clue what he is talking about and probably didn't research this stuff for more than 2 or 3 hours.

Seriously?

Cracked magazine is a Satirical Humour comic magazine. My god--It's no different from MAD Magazine. Anyone who takes this seriously needs to wake up--Do you know what satire is? No, it is not a CIA disinformation site...it's a literary term.

Satire:

A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant".[2] This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack.

wikipedia

'nuff said

[edit on 1-9-2009 by Tamale_214]

reply to post by Tamale_214


It might be satire, but they are still talking about REAL things, and REAL people read this crap and are influenced by it regardless of it being "satire."

Wow.
just
Wow.

I'm so shocked. OP, though your post is well written and cogent in and of itself, your source is a bloody humour magazine which makes me fear that you believe everything that you see or read.

If your post was meant to be satire on satire then I say "well played old man" you got me.

Great post! Thanks for including no sourcing and anything other than your narciscistic view on why "it's retarded".

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

-John D. Rockefeller

You my friend, are so far behind that you truly believe you're in first.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by king9072]

reply to post by king9072


First of all, John D. Rockefeller did not say that quote that you posted, it was written by David Rockefeller.

Second of all, I don't think the OP posted his actual personal opinion, it was an article from another website.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by Diplomat]

reply to post by Diplomat


Cracked magazine is a Satirical magazine. The entire idea of satirical humour is to present something in such a way that your audience can't help but see it as ridiculous and ultimately see it as it really is--differently from how you presented it.

Please read "a Modest Proposal" by Johnathon Swift.

An example of Satire:

"Oh that elusive Paris Hilton...why is she so afraid of the public eye? How can she be so beautiful, famous and rich and yet spurn the public eye so vehemently".

Is this the way it is? No. Does it focus you on what is the truth? Well, maybe or maybe not, but that is the intent to be sure.

Cracked magazine, despite what many understand about it, is a very sophisticated satire machine.

Does the Cracked article strike as being honest and factual in it's conclusions? No. does it make the reader question the conclusions as posed in the article? Well, maybe or maybe not, but that is the intent to be sure.



[edit on 1-9-2009 by Tamale_214]

Are you people insane? This contains NONE of my opinions, views, or beliefs. If you bothered to click the link you would clearly see that I DID NOT WRITE THIS. My friend, who apparently works for Cracked now in some form, sent me the article because he knows I'm into things of a conspiratorial nature. I posted this simply to GET opinions and see what people thought of it.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by edgecrusher2199]

reply to post by edgecrusher2199


So what you are saying is that you copied verbatim an article from your friend who "apparently now works for Cracked magazine" without presenting any opinions, points or counterpoints onto an online discussion forum and now you are upset and calling people "insane" because they are debating your OP which "contains NONE of [your] opinions, views, or beliefs".

1. what did you expect in response to your post?
2. why are you so upset? Your views aren't being represented in the ensuing discussion.

hmmm...might help us all out a bit if you would us ex or quote tags or something. I thought it was pretty funny, but I couldn't tell it wasn't your words.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I could've guessed that article was going to make people here upset.

reply to post by SuperViking


who's upset? I for one think that it is amazing that Cracked.com is writing such pieces. Cracked has the potential to have wide wide mainstream appeal. It has been voted one of the 20 funniest websites.

That particular piece, discussing (in a satirical manner) some very heavy material had 1.2 million views since june '09. I think that is AMAZING exposure for material that is often viewed on the outside of the mainstream.

Way to go Cracked.com you guys sure are swell!

People are calling it 'disinfo'. That sounds like they're upset or dumb, or both.

Originally posted by SuperViking
People are calling it 'disinfo'. That sounds like they're upset or dumb, or both.

Really? What is disinfo, if you dont mind indulging me?

What do you mean really? You used the term but you are unsure of it's definition. Why would you use it, then?

Originally posted by SuperViking
What do you mean really? You used the term but you are unsure of it's definition. Why would you use it, then?

Ummm, you stated that people are calling this disinfo, and that it sounds ignorant. I asked you to define it for me. I know what it means. It's obvious you dont. So I'd like to know how you define it.

SO please, enlighten me.

way to completely loose focus everybody. *claps slowly*

Back on topic please, stop the childish bickering.

I'm quietly getting sick of the constant 'one-up-man ship' that occurs here on nearly every thread.
ppl mocking each other for believing this or that,

I refer to those who criticise others reactions/opinions on said topic without offering any opinions on the topic themselves,
how exactly is the thread/topic to benefit from such behaviour?
its a waste of ATS 'space', that could be used better.

I simply ask for some decorum,
i.e appropriateness of style in the context of 'denying ignorance'.

P.L.U.R.I
-B.Morrison

P.S I've got like 10 threads open at the moment & have yet to read the OP,
Once I have I may have a contribution of my own re:topic, but not yet.

[edit on 2/9/09 by B.Morrison]