Kate Howard63 said:I believe you are missing the core point being made by Baphomet. These elites possess such vast quantities of wealth that money itself has become practically meaningless to them. There is an underlying ideology driving their actions—an ideology that binds the most powerful people on Earth together. Money is not the ultimate goal; it is merely the instrument. The true objective of these elites is not the accumulation of more currency, but something far more profound.
That only works if we assume every single elite shares the exact same agenda and that there's one massive, unified global conspiracy. I don't buy that. It's far more likely that there are various webs of interest, complete with internal competition—old guard players versus young lions trying to grab a bigger slice of the pie.
To put it in a local context—someone like Warren Buffett has enough financial muscle to exert significant influence over the country. By threatening to pull major advertising budgets, they can sway the media. By leveraging jobs or sparking social unrest, they influence politics. They crush competition through market dominance and control everything from the supply chain and silos to the retail giants and wholesale pricing.
But what would stop him from doing it? Do you really think he could just walk away and keep his position? Or would others try to squeeze him out? Maybe even dig up some dirt to take him down entirely? He might end up facing a fate similar to George W. Bush.😁
Even if a global conspiracy does exist, an individual like that would only be part of it because it serves their own interests. He gets something out of it, and the group gets something too. He’s in the game because he’s useful; nobody cares about passive players. And when things get riskier or more secretive, it becomes harder to quit. It’s much easier to walk away from being a baker than it is to walk away from being a spy or a mobster. You know too much to ever truly be let go.😁
Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, we’re on an alternative platform now, so we might as well speculate. 😁
The stability of our entire financial system relies heavily on those who hold the most capital—the massive corporations, the Illuminati, and so on. Because of that, there isn't any real danger to the status quo. Stock trading, the stock exchanges, and all that business aren't much different from gambling if you don't possess the necessary insider information.
And how does one quickly pull in another million when you control everything? It couldn't be easier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash
(though I highly doubt anyone will actually bother reading this 😁)
So, the premise is that the financial market is controlled by a small group of people. By doing so, they can manipulate the masses. The question remains... why?
I'm not ruling out the possibilities suggested by the likes of Aikavci
But, staying true to the spirit of the topic, perhaps the craving for conspiracy theories is merely a camouflaged longing for religiosity? A desire for there to be something above us controlling things, thereby providing a sense of purpose to our lives. After all, I see no fundamental difference in the logic: whether we are being watched over by an almighty God because we are special, or being watched over by an evil Alien because we are tasty.
Imagine the horror if we were to realize that neither God, nor reptiles, nor the Illuminati exist... and that we are simply left entirely to our own devices. 😲
That's exactly why. 🤷
If they stopped using their capital to manipulate the flow of money, they might actually lose it. You can't step back from being the puppet master and still expect to coast on the wealth and security that comes with it. If they stop playing the game, someone else with their own agenda steps in to take over. 🤷
Ryan Wilson2 said:However, if one possesses the absolute certainty of being the most powerful entity—knowing that no one can outmatch them (for instance, having enough wealth to live several lifetimes over)—then the drive for dominance is effectively satisfied.
Unless... (and here we enter the realm of conspiracy theories 😁)... the accumulation of wealth isn't actually the end goal itself. It isn't about how much they possess; rather, it is about how little we have, ensuring that control over such a massive population remains easily attainable. Pure brute force is no longer a viable method of governance, as maintaining a massive standing army is too costly. Instead, they employ much more sophisticated systems of control. And why is control necessary? Because, much like sheep in a pen, we exist to serve a purpose. Most likely, we serve as sustenance for some dominant Alien species.😁
You have plenty of cash.
But money is just an abstraction that relies on a stable financial system. You might own property, but that ownership depends entirely on a stable political system.
Lose control of those systems, or someone pulls off a revolution and nationalizes everything, and you're left with nothing.😁
Of course, this is all just speculation and rambling. I'm distancing myself from all the usual conspiracy theorists and whatnot.😁 😁
Ryan Wilson2 said:I find myself entirely dissatisfied with 😁 's response. Every single human need, in theory, can be met 🙂 .
That’s not how it works. Even the strongest lion lives in fear of running into a bigger predator or just getting old. You're constantly forced to prove your strength and mark your territory. There’s no such thing as a permanent status quo in a fight; the moment you hesitate, someone else steps in to take your spot.
At its core, it's probably just a mix of needing security and the primal urge to dominate the pack. 🤷
Though, I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on those theories quite so easily. 😬
It’s not just one conspiracy theory; it’s an entire ocean of them. Some are actually grounded enough to be unsettling, others are pure nonsense, and there's probably a huge amount of gray area somewhere 🤷
Father Damir definitely isn't a Carthusian. There aren't any Carthusians here in America; the closest you'd find would be over in Canada or maybe Mexico. Generally, contemplative orders don't make much of a public splash. Lately, though, some have been forced into the spotlight because they're short on vocations, but that’s a bad move. The whole point of being contemplative is that you don't need to chase numbers—if you start doing that, you lose what makes you unique and end up facing the exact same issues as everyone else.
As for Father Damir, he’s just a massive, childish, self-absorbed idiot.😳
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuWftlc-msU
It seems like he started out with those charismatic, pseudo-Pentecostal revivals and eventually transitioned into this phase where he adopts these flashy, shallow, circus-like American showmanship styles—sometimes literally copying them. It reminds me of something Tomson might do. Sure, they’re technically Englishmen, but clearly, the right-wing conservatives there lack the imagination to come up with anything original.🤣
Contemplative orders often sit on the opposite side of the aisle within the Church; they aren't exactly big fans of this "new spirituality." But then again, to each their own.
Personally, I think monastic communities are the only truly interesting thing happening in the Church. This other stuff is just a political-manipulative circus.🙂
In the US, when it comes to monastic orders, I think you mainly have Benedictines and Cistercians (who are a bit stricter/more contemplative—basically just a reform branch of the Benedictines). Then there are the Paulines—I'm not sure if there are others?🤔
There are also a few mendicant orders that have a more contemplative side, like the Carmelites and such.
Beyond the mendicant and monastic orders, you have different types of groupings, like priestly communities or societies with specific "charisms" or focuses.
The Salesians are a congregation focused primarily on social work, especially education.
Sam Wright21 said:It’s all well and good that believers fund their own church. My point is, there are plenty of Americans—and people from other backgrounds too—who aren't even members of the church, let alone active participants.
In my view, the best approach would be to structure things so that those tax dollars can be redirected easily. We should offer humanitarian charities as an option for people who don't want their money going to any religious group whatsoever.
On the other hand, I find it strange how we reached this point where it's considered normal for religious groups to be funded through state tax mechanisms rather than just direct contributions from members—like tithes—or specific donations from individuals and corporations, much like how most non-profits operate in the States.🤔
The people most active on the web tend to yield results that look nothing like the general public.
On top of that, comparing them to other nonprofits is a non-starter. They don't operate on the same financial model and they aren't drawing from government coffers in the same way. Honestly, claiming otherwise is just defensive demagoguery. If that weren't true, we wouldn't see "essential" organizations like the ACLU facing shutdown threats due to budget gaps. Most grassroots nonprofits survive on a case-by-case basis through one-off donations or specific project grants. They lack that steady stream of revenue flowing directly from the federal budget via those rigid international treaties that—in some ways—actually limit national sovereignty.
Anthony Hayes2 said:There's truth there. Real debaters use these so-called "ad hominems" all the time, then wait for their opponent to cry foul. It's just smoke and mirrors. Like a cheap distraction in a street fight. Or like when that guy landed a low blow on Mirko Filipović. It doesn't matter if the strike was legal once the fight is over. 🤣
vividdrifter79, whom I disagree with on almost everything, is right about one thing. Anyone whining about "ad hominem" is just flagging themselves as a coward. It's the ultimate self-inflicted insult.
Actually, I’d argue that true polemicists—the kind who value logical consistency and sound Philosophy during a debate where fallacies are easily spotted and disqualified—don't touch that stuff. Using it would just be self-sabotage at that point.
But you'll see it all the time from demagogues, populists, politicians, and anyone else running a negative marketing campaign.
I suppose it all depends on how we define a "polemicist" anyway.🤔
It’s likely a byproduct of "Serbo-American" (or vice versa, though the military influence usually puts one first) being the dominant lingua franca throughout America, forcing generations of Canadians to pick it up. I've also heard there's a significant number of Canadians who are actually naturalized from other regions, though I don't have the exact figures at hand...
David Vaughn75 said:And even if there *was* some massive consensus, you still couldn't actually prove karma exists, could you?
Since there isn't a consensus among spiritual leaders—nor any actual proof—why should writing about spirituality automatically mean you have to assume or accept the concept of karma?
David Vaughn75 said:The ultimate judge for any Guru exam is God himself 😎
Most gurus have absolutely no clue what they're getting themselves into. If they start leading people down the wrong path, karma is going to hit them like a freight train. Let's be real: providing spiritual guidance is probably the heaviest responsibility a person can ever take on.
That’s assuming karma and karmic debt actually exist, of course.
Being a guru isn't some mystical state of being or a level you reach. There’s no cosmic consciousness meter used during some licensing exam to measure your status. You just declare yourself one and start trading.
Ryan Gomez4 said:I disagree. When you're broke, you think about making money, not "transcending" it. You only start worrying about spiritual stuff once you've actually secured your survival.
Becoming a guru is a pretty convenient way to get there, anyway.😁
It feels like the wealthy are more likely to crack under the weight of ascetic practices than those living a Hedonistic lifestyle. They don't have the same complexes, frustrations, or unfulfilled desires, so they might actually end up becoming saints or something along those lines. 😳