Are conspiracy theorists jealous of those who have power?

Originally posted by miragezero
reply to post by NWOhereNOW

 

I agree with you. I'm kind of envious myself. Not for the power or wealth but just the knowledge and ability to DO something...

Well, it appears you are one of the few who understand what I am saying. Everyone else is concentrating on the character and desires of those already in power. The problem we face as a world is that the people who now seek power are the greedy selfish ones.

I believe it would be a better world if the selfless leaders, bent on altruism would strive and obtain power. Of course, such a drive could only come from pure logic and reasoning. There would be no place for personal benefit or greed.

The only benefit would be for the world as a whole.

People on ATS claim to be better than those in power, yet they sit idly by watching them corrupt the planet.

It's like conspiracy theorists are not only jealous, but also afraid to go down that path... lacking the courage it takes to walk down the valley of the shadow of death, as it were.

Perhaps they believe they are not incapable of being corrupted by wealth and influence as much as they like to pretend.

reply to post by NWOhereNOW


Wow good points NWO... Al lot of the posts in this thread pretty much proves the statements in your OP that people just need somebody to whine about so they can deflect blame from their own inadequacies. I mean some of them even whine about your avatar disturbing them, like they are incapable of just looking away or going to another thread or logging off. Dont you think the world would be a much better place if people just took responsiblity for their lives and quit finding some new group of boogeymen to blame for everything they dont like about the world?

reply to post by NWOhereNOW


Well I can't speak for the rest of the people here but I for one am in no way jealous of those in power. I am however jealous of those who have wealth but that is only because most of them are grossly misusing it while people around the world are dying, starving, etc...

I'd hate to have power because of how easily it corrupts, no thanks, I'd rahter stay humble if you don't mind...

Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

Why would I care for a good looking mate only, when I can have a good looking one that is educated, caring, selfless and is willing to look outside the box. *second edit: I could go on all day about her real qualities...

That is what I have. I don't wear 'nice' clothes, I don't have a job at the moment (but I am in school lol), I don't have a nice car, etc. And I really don't care about any of that junk - they all wear out and break down anyway.

I found a beautiful woman who looks beyond appearances and goes for what's real in life: Intellect, compassion, taking chances, looking outside the box, artistry, devotion, dedication.

Oh did I say she's hot?

It takes time to understand it, but there really is more to life than what you see.

*Edit: Just proves how lies are just a way for the weak to acomplish something they otherwise could not.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by shanerz]

[edit on 7-6-2009 by shanerz]

You're missing the point.

Do you think EVERYONE thinks like you? Just because you espouse adamant mate selection procedures and have deeper selective parameters not does mean anyone else does!

What the previous poster was trying to say was that the majority of people are attracted to money, wealth, fame, and power.

I don't think you even understand that your entire post is nothing but an ode to your girlfriend/wife and has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

It's almost as if you are suggesting that shallow people don't exist by completely ignoring what has been said. It only shows me that you are short-sighted and only take your own experiences into account when analyzing things. What you are doing, if you know it or not, is living in the fallacy of ignorance.

You're basically saying, "Well, I got in a car crash and wasn't injured, so I don't know what's wrong with all the people who die from them. Maybe they had something wrong with them."

You should really consider things beyond your experience.

I bet you've never put your self in the shoes of an idiot, or a shallow person before. You need to walk a mile in the shoes of someone first before you understand them.

Ever seen the movie tropic thunder?

Tugg Speedman: There were times while I was playing Jack where I felt...

[pause]
Tugg Speedman: ...retarded. Like, really retarded.

Kirk Lazarus: Damn!

Tugg Speedman: In a weird way I had to sort of just free myself up to believe that is was ok to be stupid or dumb.

Kirk Lazarus: To be a moron.

Tugg Speedman: Yeah!

Kirk Lazarus: To be moronical.

Tugg Speedman: Exactly, to be a moron.

Kirk Lazarus: An imbecile.

Tugg Speedman: Yeah!

Kirk Lazarus: Like the dumbest mother ** that ever lived.

Tugg Speedman: [pause] When I was playing the character.

....

Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.

Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?

Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...

Look, what I'm saying is that sometimes you have to go full retard to understand humanity, considering most of humanity is on full retard already. If you don't go full retard around them, they think you are being presumptuous are think you are better than them. You need to come down to peoples' levels. You're not trying to win an Oscar here: You're trying to understand the world. Put yourself in their shoes to understand them.

Then, maybe you will see that idiots and lazy people are just people to... BUT they are people that need to be controlled for the good of humanity because they don't know how to act and can't control themselves.

Great leaders understand this, but most of them are selfish and greedy.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by NWOhereNOW

 

Wow good points NWO... Al lot of the posts in this thread pretty much proves the statements in your OP that people just need somebody to whine about so they can deflect blame from their own inadequacies. I mean some of them even whine about your avatar disturbing them, like they are incapable of just looking away or going to another thread or logging off. Dont you think the world would be a much better place if people just took responsiblity for their lives and quit finding some new group of boogeymen to blame for everything they dont like about the world?

People like to live in the illusion that they are in control of themselves, which couldn't be further from the truth. As illustrated, everyone in this thread is dependent on everyone else. What is ATS? A user-generated eco-system. This ecosystem is interdependent, and so is the world. Every response to my OP was generated by who?

Was the first response generated by the next poster, or was that next response dependent on my OP? Why, it was both of course, yet existing within neither. Just as two celestial bodies in space have a center of mass between them in space, two posters on ATS have a center of action between them. The same goes for the actions of many people. Celestial gravitation dynamics are a wonderful analogy to be applied to a "user generated eco-system" such as ATS where people are dependent on one another.

The problem here is that people don't realize they are responding do to causality. They are merely providing a continua to my thoughts based on the sum of their life experiences, and I as well: and so, a conversation is born.

I think that the people disturbed by my avatar are incapable of not being disturbed by my avatar, otherwise they wouldn't be disturbed in the first place. They could just look at it and go, "Oh, that's great"... but instead, they become disturbed. They can no more be disturbed than a falling raindrop can negate gravity of it's own accord.

If people understood they were as much a part of the world as they are members of ATS, then they would have the desire to change it, just like members here are always posting for things they want to see ATS change.

... but they are only looking for new boogeymen to blame their problems on, like you say.

reply to post by NWOhereNOW


Well I do see your point to a degree, but even though I agree with the fact that we are interdependent, I also see a need for personal responsibility on the things we can control, our perception and reaction to things.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by NWOhereNOW

 

Well I do see your point to a degree, but even though I agree with the fact that we are interdependent, I also see a need for personal responsibility on the things we can control, our perception and reaction to things.

I think that we have a degree of personal control, but I think what I am saying is that control is based upon our previous experiences. In order to control ourselves, we essentially have to program ourselves in the past perspective, so that we react differently in the future from the perspective of the future.

Don't people go to anger management classes so that they can control their anger in the future?

Don't people learn the martial arts so that they can defend themselves in the future?

Don't people go to college so that they can be a/n [insert occupation here] in the future?

I think we are both thinking the same thing here. Personal responsibility doesn't come from the future - it comes from the past and the immediate present based upon past "programming" or learning.

It is everyone's personal responsibility to... anticipate the "bugs" in their programming, by learning various things to be utilized in the future. It almost makes me wish that their were government mandated "Self-responsibility" courses which were required to be taken every six months to make people think about their flaws and what they need to work on, personally.

People are ALWAYS looking to BLAME someone else. BLAME something else. BLAME another. They never want to BLAME THEMSELVES.

Well, I suppose some people blame themselves for EVERYTHING and eventually get depressed, suicidal, or even sociacidal (killing members of society, like school shootings).. maybe even genocidal. Hitler blamed the Jews for everything. Maybe that was his real problem. Otherwise, he would have been a great success like Borat!

Conspiracy theorists on the other hand, seem to blame the government for everything. They blame the "sheeple" for everything.

Just who do they think they are? The smartest thing since sliced bread?

Many of them talk about a revolution (killing the government).

You're right, there are many things that we can control - or at least have the perception that we can control them - and we should take responsibility upon ourselves to be able to control the outcome. In order to do that, we need to prepare ourselves to do it. We need to anticipate our flaws and our limits and continually learn new things.

Sadly, most people don't even recognize their flaws through their ego. They live a stagnant life, happy with what they are. Happy with what they've learned. They don't want to be better. They are nothing more than a stagnant puddle of water, happy with itself... with mosquito larvae ready to hatch... resulting in nothing other than a bunch of blood sucking insects which infest the general population.

No, they are more like paranoid lunatics or people with too much time on their hands.

Given there are probably SOME top secret cover ups and crazy stuff going on, some of these people are just wow sometimes.

reply to post by NWOhereNOW


I totally understand were you are coming from now. You are absolutely correct. I think a case could be made that the whole set of personal attacks on people percieved to be a part of the NWO are simply people redirecting their blame to absolutely anyone or anything no matter how real or how imaginary. It some people didnt come up with the NWO, then the blamers would be blaming the tooth fairy because she didnt bring enough money when they were kids.

reply to post by LeftyBrown


One of the reasons I like this site so much is that for every 100 claims, there is probaably a grain of truth in a few.
It's learning something new every time I open ATS up.

If knowledge is power, then this is just one of many wellsprings to gain from.

00.02

Originally posted by NWOhereNOW


I believe it would be a better world if the selfless leaders, bent on altruism would strive and obtain power. Of course, such a drive could only come from pure logic and reasoning. There would be no place for personal benefit or greed.

Not todays altruism much... I think that would just treat the symptoms of things that are wrong. But if the altruistic act involved technology that would completely change things for the better then yes I'd say that is the way to go. I think there is room for personal benefit; in fact we need a lot of that. :-) Dunno about pure logic... there are lots of morality problems with pure logic. I recently got into a debate that logic was subjective and I said it wasn't. I lost. Logic does rely on unknowns and relative points of view... spock would not approve but it's true.

NWOisHere

I read through this thread and it made me smile. There are actually people who can think critically, logically, and converse, without worrying about ego.

I’m not sure where to interject in this thesis; since, I think you have said it quite well. However, I believe I can pick one thing. The premise of People “being slaves” is generally too simplistic for me. I understand your metaphorical point, but I think it is the word that is wrong. The greatest issue when trying to understand any system is coming to realize that your point of view can change your truth.

It is entirely natural to have a large system made up of hundreds of smaller systems, all governed by different sets of rules in a hierarchical construct. Each system can grow, change, and expire; living with a set of rules that are logical in every way. It is not necessary for each sub system’s rules to agree, aid, harm, or be aware of any other in order for the function of the entire construct.

This paradigm is not a construct of humanity; it simply is the “way” of all things. To me this is a template that should overlay your discussion. So calling People “slaves,” in the context you did, is like calling a Fish a waterbreather. The word is not correct in the context of Shanerz's post. I also would argue regardless of other points, that at the most basic level, you are not a slave because you can destroy yourself. If you wish to participate then there are rules. Rules are generated by all sorts of systems and the more complex the systems the greater the layers of rules.

Again, I understand your point. But the word "slave" conjures up a basic precept that the slavery is against your will. If you willingly acquiesce to the system are you a slave? It is all about point of view isn't it? So it is a fine point, I agree. Free will is there for all to see and consequences are also there for all to see. The choice is always yours.

Bravo for a great post. It is a pity most cannot change their point of reference. Rigid thought is the domain of the ignorant