The Elite and their Marionettes

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The art of communication and convincing is indeed dangerous, but only if others do not have the necessary means to defend against it. That is my point. Without a knowledge of rhetoric, others will use it against you.

But I disagree rhetoric is essentially criminal. Though it is true that one can convince others through rhetoric the opposite of truth, one can also do the same with truth. It's about effectiveness, clarity and beauty in composition.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree with your and Ketsuko's point that rhetoric can be used like counter intelligence against the intelligentsia.

But it is almost never presented that way. It is presented as acceptable to lie in between the lines because everybody else does it.

The best exercise of rhetoric would be to elicit strong or appropriate emotions that would help facilitate a feat, task or exertion.

Rhetoric could help to do something, but should never decide something.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The best exercise of rhetoric would be to elicit strong or appropriate emotions that would help facilitate a feat, task or exertion.

Rhetoric could help to do something, but should never decide something.

I agree, but I'm not sure rhetoric decides anything. I think of MLK's Letters from a Birmingham Jail or the speeches of Winston Churchill, who were masters of the craft, and see the the possibilities when put to good use. Then again, any marketing ploy is also rhetoric, and I cringe.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Stay close to what you know. Gambling on an assumption can be a reasonable act, but remember that you are taking a chance.

How do you know what you know is correct? Surely there must be a set of fundamentals in place first.

I read recently that "truth corresponds with reality".

A good argument will show the actual outcome before it happens. Any other argument should declare its uncertainty.

I suppose religion and the support of benefactors made truth telling lethally impractical when the Trivium was the best that could be done.

Individualism is new, and genuine truthful communication, without deference to the lord or political group, is new also.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The best exercise of rhetoric would be to elicit strong or appropriate emotions that would help facilitate a feat, task or exertion.

Rhetoric could help to do something, but should never decide something.

I agree, but I'm not sure rhetoric decides anything. I think of MLK's Letters from a Birmingham Jail or the speeches of Winston Churchill, who were masters of the craft, and see the the possibilities when put to good use. Then again, any marketing ploy is also rhetoric, and I cringe.

MLK might be a Saint. Winston Churchill might be the most destructive man that ever spoke according to revisionist history.

Yes, advertising came often to mind when I was in school learning English. I think the word persuasive was the only word used in every lecture. (rhetorical sorry, but used every lecture I think) Like they were Nazghul searching the talent for that in particular.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

MLK might be a Saint. Winston Churchill might be the most destructive man that ever spoke according to revisionist history.

I would argue they are nothing more than brilliant rhetoricians and orators. Churchill talked about his schooling in his Fulton speech, and it involved rhetoric, dialectics, logic, and in the end gave him the ability to convince an entire country to go to war. He surely inspired people to destroy, but he never forced them to do it. He might be the most convincing man in history, but not the most destructive. He himself probably hadn't even picked up a gun since the Boer War.

As for the correspondence theory of truth, it has its merits. Snow is white if and when snow is white, seems true enough. But there are plenty of technical objections to this theory you might want to check out before adopting it outright.

Cheers

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hmm, a polymath with great physical ability should be in the 'elite', then? When reffering to the 'elites' in our society, I mean more the ruling class, not neccesarily the most virtuous or talented.

It seems a ruling class will always exist, do you believe that your definition of 'elite', meaning the individuals who exemplify these qualities, should make up that ruling class?

While occasionally there are certain indviduals as talented as you speak (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind), don't you think that's something of an impossible standard for rulers to aspire to?

or do you simply mean elite as in those individuals who have existed and do exist that you place above others, power in society, nonwithstanding?

and what would you say about the individuals who exemplify those intellectual qualities, but fall short of the physical? (I ask this because there seems a long list of examples of myopic scientists for example, or artistic geniuses who suffered from diseases of the mind, and so on)

Not to assume, or to offend, but this is sounding something like the Nietzschean Ubermensch. (Not that that's a bad thing.)

The term Elite should only be applied to ones own capability so long as it can measured and graded more or less to skills, but if it came to leadership, then that should be more or less left to experience, or wiser individuals, and to a certain extent, credibility amonsgt. Sure intelligence maybe a good sign or more or less leaves the impression, but it has limits like physical superiority especially when it comes to real world application, which is where experience should come in.

Saying there are elites in sports is more or less like qualifying legendary sportsmen, like Micheal Jordan or Wayne Gretzky. Gretzky a good example since he wasn't the most powerful skater and was less intimidating then others, but he knew how to read the play which made him get his own number legendary, 99. It almost like qualifying ones self as a God in a certain respect, but to a skill set instead of Realm or Element.

Elite seems to get tossed around a lot, and often associated with wealthy class, possibly due to the material items being Elite in ether materialistic quality , or capabilities and might even be considered when it comes to the rarity in availability, or even classifying themselves as a breed.

Speaking of Elites and physical superiority , it reminded me of DBZ...It won't kill that....many... brains cells.

Everyone loves to see the rise of the underdog, and the fall of a champion.

a reply to: HeliopolisTheophilus

Hmm, a polymath with great physical ability should be in the 'elite', then? When reffering to the 'elites' in our society, I mean more the ruling class, not neccesarily the most virtuous or talented.

It seems a ruling class will always exist, do you believe that you're definition of 'elite', meaning the individuals who exemplify these qualities, should make up that ruling class?

While occasionally there are certain indviduals as talented as you speak (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind), don't you think that's something of an impossible standard for a ruler to aspire to?

or do you simply mean elite as in those individuals who have existed and do exist that you place above others, power in society, nonwithstanding?

and what would you say about the individuals who exemplify those intellectual qualities, but fall short of the physical? (I ask this because there seems a long list of examples of myopic scientists for example, or artistic geniuses who suffered from diseases of the mind, and so on)

Not to assume, or to offend, but this is sounding something like the Nietzschean Ubermensch. (Not that that's a bad thing.)

A discussion on the definition of a "good man" varies wildly throughout philosophy and religion, and any such conception is a matter of tastes. I can only give my opinion.

As I said, one can only be elite at a few things. But I think we can judge a character by the quality of what she leaves behind. Perhaps it is up to tastes and perspective after all.

I have a more general view of health that I couldn't get into here, but I think any affliction or disease forces one to deal with reality in such a way that leaves him somewhat healthier than before. I don't think it makes us stronger in a Nietzschean sense, but it allows us to be vulnerable. But yes, greatness is available to all, even the ill, the disabled, as far as their body, situation and environment allows. I only think that being healthy would improve themselves.

Unfortunately, greatness is about one part ability and three parts luck. One has to be in the right place at the right time. I would say the true elite are very rare.

For my own tastes, the most interesting people are my elites. He would have to be a genius. You can tell a genius by the fact that he is doing it, seizing the opportunity, not only thinking about it. More Aristotle's magnanimous man. Their work would have to be timeless and able to affect many years beyond their death. Things of that nature.

No I do not think the ruling class is in anyway elite, for they operate on too small a scale. Work that can influence for thousands of years can influence even the most powerful men.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah but your forgetting one thing.

That is the Elite of the Elite!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
This is at least what they’d like us to think. However, I fail to see any shackles. In fact, I think I see people doing exactly what they wan’t to do. Still, there are some who blame authority, institutions, government, which are for the most part ran by people like us who wake up and go to work every day, even our neighbours.

LesMis

Oh, our "leaders" are people "just like the rest of us" are they? Really? You honestly believe they're "just like" Joe Blow and Sue Pue commoner on the street,do ya? Wow... Our "leaders" are NOTHING like the common man. Most of our "leaders" have NO idea of the struggles of the common man, and those who MIGHT have known of SOME of those struggles, have been so long removed that they don't really remember what it was like... This is a HUGE part of the problem. There is no one in the ruling class who KNOWS what life is about for the common man. Not a single iota of an idea.
Further more, from what I read of your post, all I got from it was Elite apolgeticism... Smh.. With everything going on, I don't know why anyone would even bother, but obviously you did.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Oh, our "leaders" are people "just like the rest of us" are they? Really? You honestly believe they're "just like" Joe Blow and Sue Pue commoner on the street,do ya? Wow... Our "leaders" are NOTHING like the common man. Most of our "leaders" have NO idea of the struggles of the common man, and those who MIGHT have known of SOME of those struggles, have been so long removed that they don't really remember what it was like... This is a HUGE part of the problem. There is no one in the ruling class who KNOWS what life is about for the common man. Not a single iota of an idea.
Further more, from what I read of your post, all I got from it was Elite apolgeticism... Smh.. With everything going on, I don't know why anyone would even bother, but obviously you did.

If that is the case, then no common man has any idea of the struggles of the ruling class. You’ve refuted yourself with your own hypocrisy and duplicity, willing to apply an argument to others but never yourself. You’re simply guessing. You have not a single iota of an idea. All you have is common man apologetics.

www.godlikeproductions.com...

what weird thing is going on with rihanna and those backing her?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You give me a cynical view on the world. Sorry I don’t like it.
I think despite all misery, the world is going in the right direction. Look at the last few thousand years. Life was so much more miserable, especially for woman. But also for minorities.
Humans are egocentric, nothing to do about that. Democracy is mediocrity. Plato was right in many ways. But it’s by this mediocrity we have to go forward. There is no alternative.
True, this world seems very divided. But think about how it was so many years ago.
There are secret leaders I believe. But it is incredible difficult to lead humankind to unity.
www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just so there's no confusion to readers. Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, does not preach consumption, materialism, or abuse of planetary resources as a source of happiness. In Buddhist scripture happiness is an internally cultivated state of consciousness (scientifically proven), meaning the only resources required would be necessities to sustain basic life.

As for the rest of your content, it's quite accurate. But not surprising or new. Humanity has always had a caste system, even before civilization arose. The only difference between the last 6,000 years and today is the illusion that no such system exists which means the elites have learned to play and rig the game better. What you expounded upon here, and which maybe took years to decipher, is something your average Egyptian peasant in 700 BC, or serf in the Middle Ages, already knew from the time they could speak.

I think trying to break the illusion and inform people is a noble cause, but ultimately pointless. Do you want people to live blissfully thinking they have a voice and fair shake at things (aka modern day philosophy), or to live knowing they are essentially livestock and serfs with no upward mobility (aka how it was since the dawn of man)? Those are the only 2 options and even the premise behind the Matrix. I would be more humane and choose the former. You could never dissolve this system. Every time it has been torn down through revolution, another simply rose to fill its position. It is at the core of human nature.

a reply to: TheLegend

Just so there's no confusion to readers. Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, does not preach consumption, materialism, or abuse of planetary resources as a source of happiness. In Buddhist scripture happiness is an internally cultivated state of consciousness (scientifically proven), meaning the only resources required would be necessities to sustain basic life.

As for the rest of your content, it's quite accurate. But not surprising or new. Humanity has always had a caste system, even before civilization arose. The only difference between the last 6,000 years and today is the illusion that no such system exists which means the elites have learned to play and rig the game better. What you expounded upon here, and which maybe took years to decipher, is something your average Egyptian peasant in 700 BC, or serf in the Middle Ages, already knew from the time they could speak.

I think trying to break the illusion and inform people is a noble cause, but ultimately pointless. Do you want people to live blissfully thinking they have a voice and fair shake at things (aka modern day philosophy), or to live knowing they are essentially livestock and serfs with no upward mobility (aka how it was since the dawn of man)? Those are the only 2 options and even the premise behind the Matrix. I would be more humane and choose the former. You could never dissolve this system. Every time it has been torn down through revolution, another simply rose to fill its position. It is at the core of human nature.

The Dalai Lama preaches happiness is what I said. But happiness is quite easy. Buddha tells us explicitly what he thinks happy is, if you remember it. Interestingly enough, it is something that he himself never followed. Then again he never wrote it for himself did he? He wrote it for the followers.

People are not livestock if their so-called elites are fellow livestock. This "game" is completely rudderless. No one is in control; it's just that like every herd, everyone else simply follows who's in front. Those who are in front are running nowhere.

Although it may be unpopular with some ...
There is a hierarchy to the Universe ...
Universal Law dictates the order of things
Order out of Chaos if you like

Yet each is sovereign over them selves
There is nothing wrong with stepping forward and leading nor in choosing to follow
Like cogs in a watch ... each is of equal importance

These fools are not exalted even in their own hierarchy, they are simply the pawns of the old ones of the negaverse. I'm sure you understand this already.

Interesting that you would tackle such an issue, I didn't know you were a believer in secret power groups. Next we'll have Phage raving about timeline manipulations and grey mind control.

Such a contrarian you are after all, kind of funny.. these contrarians among the contrarians that plays the devils advocate. I'm sure you were some uppity Heyoka that walked and talked backwards and stuff, probably wanted to be at least a little like Diogenes.

Would you admire a person like Diogenes?

a reply to: artistpoet

Yes, this is true. Even the beings of the negaverse much follow certain laws, and there are various hierarchies.

The true joke is the fact that this World is a fantasy World.. people just don't know it. It was funny how easily mankind forgot, so funny.