The Big Picture

Bumblegoose

Okay in my opinion Fianna Fail and Fine Gael and all other organized Parties are all actually being run by the same puppet master. It makes perfect sense in several ways like it would mean no matter what whoever the puppetmasters are (I dont know - i dont have all the answers) would be in control no matter what, it also means that all their bickering and arguing and trying to be better than eachother is all to distract the people of the country so that they dont start to ask big questions and instead they just have another 'democratic' election and vote in the same puppets with a different name. And this just happens over and over and over so its a perfect setup for everyone except the people like we can all see there all useless and they all break the promises. Theyre all the same.

You may think im crazy but be open minded

clever_name

What is the reason for "the puppetmaster" to do this?

To me it seems like a huge amount of time and effort to manage all these fake politicians (and everyone else in on the scam) to ensure they dont let the cat out of the bag.

Also is this just Ireland or is it global?

Bumblegoose

clever_name wrote: »

What is the reason for "the puppetmaster" to do this?

To me it seems like a huge amount of time and effort to manage all these fake politicians (and everyone else in on the scam) to ensure they dont let the cat out of the bag.

Also is this just Ireland or is it global?

The reason would be that the puppet master would like to have control of everything I'd say.

Huge amount of time and effort? This could be going on since the start of politics who knows?

I'm sure its global and a clear example would be the USA with the whole Democrats and Rebublicans thing I dont believe it for one second.

digme

it's called usury

MrStuffins

I hear the conspiracy, but I dont hear the theory.

Is there any meat to what you're saying or are you just saying stuff that comes to your head?

Irish Sovereign

I believe your right bumblegoose.As a researcher of geo politics myself for many years there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many countries main political parties & people of high positions within the countries are serving the interests of very wealthy international bankers.And if the politicians of the "different" parties arent controlled by them then at the very least they are being influenced by them.Even if the politicians who are genuine & really want to make a difference manage to get into power then they will just be bought out because lets face it.Everyone has their price.

Bumblegoose

MrStuffins wrote: »

I hear the conspiracy, but I dont hear the theory.

Is there any meat to what you're saying or are you just saying stuff that comes to your head?

I'm sorry heres a theory : If they have control of everything, which they do if they are always the government in power so they are always in control, then they have the power to change taxes, take money off people etc which means more money for them. It also means that they get the people thinking and arguing in their minds about what political party they should choose which distracts them from seeing that they are constantly being cut over and over again and being treated terribly and being promised things that never happen. Take the lisbon treaty for example, I know its many years ago but still . From the reasons from the 'Yes' side at the time.

This Treaty will:

- Strengthen the EU’s capacity to bring greater economic prosperity, which we have shared and will continue to share.

Now i didnt see this happening. This treaty was pure and utter BS and was just an excuse for the big guys up top to have MORE power and money. Thats what its all about. I'm sorry if i didnt explain well i have all these things in my head but when it comes to writing them down im not great.

Irish Sovereign wrote: »

I believe your right bumblegoose.As a researcher of geo politics myself for many years there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many countries main political parties & people of high positions within the countries are serving the interests of very wealthy international bankers.And if the politicians of the "different" parties arent controlled by them then at the very least they are being influenced by them.Even if the politicians who are genuine & really want to make a difference manage to get into power then they will just be bought out because lets face it.Everyone has their price.

Correct. I also see that was your first post i must have enticed you to join and comment on the conversation :rolleyes: ah im messing welcome to the forum tho

clever_name

Bumblegoose wrote: »

I'm sorry heres a theory : If they have control of everything, which they do if they are always the government in power so they are always in control, then they have the power to change taxes, take money off people etc which means more money for them.

More money how? If "they have control of everything" then they already control ALL the money.

Do you have an idea of the structure of the puppetmasters organisation? I would imagine it must be vast, a global network controling governments and banks (among other things, media etc.) would surley need to be huge.

Bumblegoose wrote: »

It also means that they get the people thinking and arguing in their minds about what political party they should choose which distracts them from seeing that they are constantly being cut over and over again and being treated terribly and being promised things that never happen.

Well they are doing a crappy job of this, I think most people are more than aware of the promises that not kept.

Bumblegoose wrote: »

Now i didnt see this happening. This treaty was pure and utter BS and was just an excuse for the big guys up top to have MORE power and money. Thats what its all about. I'm sorry if i didnt explain well i have all these things in my head but when it comes to writing them down im not great.

Again if they already control everything (all government, banking and everything else) how do they get more power than that?

How do you increase your level of control when you already have 100% ?

Bumblegoose

clever_name wrote: »

More money how? If "they have control of everything" then they already control ALL the money.

Do you have an idea of the structure of the puppetmasters organisation? I would imagine it must be vast, a global network controling governments and banks (among other things, media etc.) would surley need to be huge.



Well they are doing a crappy job of this, I think most people are more than aware of the promises that not kept.



Again if they already control everything (all government, banking and everything else) how do they get more power than that?

How do you increase your level of control when you already have 100% ?

Yes but they aren't doing anything about the promises that aren't kept, well except for ringing Joe Duffy maybe so the governments are content that the people arent fighting back.

And on your comment about the structure. I believe only the people at the top are aware of the structure for example the leader of the party perhaps but all of the people lower than that may not know anything of the structure. That wouldnt be that huge if you think about it if just the party leaders (maybe not even the party leaders) were aware of it.

You increase the level of control by removing more of the peoples freedom in ways like RFID chips to track your every movement (these will be here in the near future I'd say) but anyway thats another topic completely.

Hope this answers your questions

clever_name

Bumblegoose wrote: »

And on your comment about the structure. I believe only the people at the top are aware of the structure for example the leader of the party perhaps but all of the people lower than that may not know anything of the structure. That wouldnt be that huge if you think about it if just the party leaders (maybe not even the party leaders) were aware of it.

I'm not talking about the party leaders, what I mean is the puppetmasters organisation, the group who control everything - an organisation that plans all action, controls and oversees all banking, government and other necessary areas (media etc.) would need to be huge?

The level of complexity involved in running a network of fake governments, would lead to an organisation that would almost rival the fakes they create in terms of size and scope.

Add to this the possibly even more elaborate task of secretly controlling everything - again this would be undertaking of mind-boggling complexity.

Imagine an organistion capable of at least two global networks controlling wealth and power, that is constantly planning, directing and monitoring basically everything, what structure would that orgainistion have?

Bumblegoose

clever_name wrote: »

I'm not talking about the party leaders, what I mean is the puppetmasters organisation, the group who control everything - an organisation that plans all action, controls and oversees all banking, government and other necessary areas (media etc.) would need to be huge?

The level of complexity involved in running a network of fake governments, would lead to an organisation that would almost rival the fakes they create in terms of size and scope.

Add to this the possibly even more elaborate task of secretly controlling everything - again this would be undertaking of mind-boggling complexity.

Imagine an organistion capable of at least two global networks controlling wealth and power, that is constantly planning, directing and monitoring basically everything, what structure would that orgainistion have?

They wouldnt need to be huge they just have to be the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world . This is going to end up being a discussion about secret societies like i dunno whether its the illuminati or bilderberg group or freemasons who call the shots i really dunno. I just know whoever they are they have great power and wealth.

They dont need to secretly control everything the governments are in the public eye and the public (for the most part) are sheep and wouldnt suspect anything it's only when you start questioning things you have to ask yourself what to believe.

I imagine that there is a small minority of people on the inside of this. Maybe there are different people assigned to difference regions of the world. They are in charge of the banks and thats why the banks get away with murder always and even if the banks are called up on something its only to make the public think that they are doing something about it. I know im not answering your questions very well haha i will sleep on it and come back on tomorrow goodnight.

Torakx

I guess a good starting point for investigating this theory is looking at the last 3 or 4 taoiseach's and see who they were affiliated with,who bought them out and who those people were affiliated with.
Has been alot of scandals with nearly every taoiseach after they have stepped down.
If however these people were associated with a secret society it might be a bit hard to find that out in many cases.
Im guessing,nearly all taoiseach's were freemasons right?
Not saying thats the cause but its one of many possibilities in my eyes.
The lodge is just beside parliament,rather convenient for the hidden hand if that is the case.

I do vaguely remember one taoiseach having a scandal to do with building construction(shopping center somewhere i think) too but who knows that could just be people abusing ther power in general too.

I do agree though in my view its likely no matter what party gets "control" things will always be the same.
Even if there is an uprising from the public i would guess the leader who gets control will be bought or killed anyway.
We need some system base on anarchy

ps, i think since we bowed to europe alot of the big decisions that effects us in negative ways originate from there.

digme

Torakx wrote: »

I guess a good starting point for investigating this theory is looking at the last 3 or 4 taoiseach's and see who they were affiliated with,who bought them out and who those people were affiliated with.
Has been alot of scandals with nearly every taoiseach after they have stepped down.
If however these people were associated with a secret society it might be a bit hard to find that out in many cases.
Im guessing,nearly all taoiseach's were freemasons right?
Not saying thats the cause but its one of many possibilities in my eyes.
The lodge is just beside parliament,rather convenient for the hidden hand if that is the case.

I do vaguely remember one taoiseach having a scandal to do with building construction(shopping center somewhere i think) too but who knows that could just be people abusing ther power in general too.

I do agree though in my view its likely no matter what party gets "control" things will always be the same.
Even if there is an uprising from the public i would guess the leader who gets control will be bought or killed anyway.
We need some system base on anarchy

ps, i think since we bowed to europe alot of the big decisions that effects us in negative ways originate from there.

It's right in front of your face. Goldman sachs, jpmorgan etc.........

Torakx

Ye i suspect they own NAMA who bought up alot of property.
I found out recently a family member of mine is renting from a NAMA owned apartment block,because the original builders defaulted on their loans,how nice of them to help!.
I was like oh i see,they are buying our country one recession at a time.

FISMA

Bumblegoose wrote: »

... and all other organized Parties are all actually being run by the same puppet master... You may think im crazy but be open minded

I think you are the puppet master! So drunk on power that you're going to tell the whole world your secret online!

Well played puppet master!

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

I do agree though in my view its likely no matter what party gets "control" things will always be the same.

Because, relatively speaking, we have it pretty good. If there is no major cause for discontent what impetus is there to drive change?

Torakx wrote: »

Even if there is an uprising from the public i would guess the leader who gets control will be bought or killed anyway.
We need some system base on anarchy

I'd take Bertie Ahern being made immortal god-emperor of all mankind over anarchism any day of the week, personally.

Torakx wrote: »

ps, i think since we bowed to europe alot of the big decisions that effects us in negative ways originate from there.

I think 'europe' is a often used as a convenient scapegoat for our own failings domestically. Why blame ourselves when we can blame the "faceless, unelected, bureaucrats in Brussels" to borrow a daily mail-ism.
This doesn't mean that there aren't decisions that could be viewed as not completely Ireland friendly but I'm struggling to think of a stand out example of a big decision that'd affect us negatively.

Torakx

We have it how we have it i think lol
It could be worse it could be better.
That aside my point or contention was that the common man in this country has no real sway on policy.
I would say there are causes for discontent,its just that most people do not see it or are too busy with daily life to realise things could be alot better.
People in Ireland especially put up with massive amounts of bullcrap when they shouldnt have to.Its become the irish way.
"a sure if its not broken(fully) dont fix it" or " i dont want to make a fuss" etc etc
Maybe its the flouride talking i dont know.But i remember staying in paris for a week or two when i was younger and noticed alot of the french i met there were not afraid to stand up for injustices as an example to compare.

I havent yet researched theories on applied anarchism,but to be honest democracy doesnt exist right now,its corrupted totally and a better system of self governing needs to be considered.
I like the idea of anarchism because the view of the many precedes that of the few.
In democracy it appears to be the other way around.Just because its the norm to be domocratic and apparently thats the civilised way today doesnt mean its a good way to go.
Back in earlier years communism was considered a good idea...so too was monarchism if that is indeed a word lol

Europe decides alot of things for the continent.We are bound by those decisions through different means.
Our corrupt politicians made promises in the name of the irish people and the irish being so laid back and ignorant allowed this to happen.
I dont blame them fully as most have not been educated at all and have not learned the value of self education.
We are mostly conditioned and naturally adapt to our enviornment.This enviornment is not geared toward free thinking.
Its geared toward capitalism,greed and the ego.

A small and comonly used example of europes negative effect might be the irish fisheries.Had we not joined europe we may have been able to keep our waters for ourselves.
Many other decisions im sure pass down from europe.Regarding security,tax,our enviornmental care and laws etc etc.
Yes we may have had some help like loans and grants but i believe they must have come with a price.And i think we are paying it now just like we did in the 80's.

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

We have it how we have it i think lol
It could be worse it could be better.

Well, I think because it could be so much worse that there a need for change is not really being felt.

Torakx wrote: »

That aside my point or contention was that the common man in this country has no real sway on policy.
I would say there are causes for discontent,its just that most people do not see it or are too busy with daily life to realise things could be alot better.
People in Ireland especially put up with massive amounts of bullcrap when they shouldnt have to.Its become the irish way.
"a sure if its not broken(fully) dont fix it" or " i dont want to make a fuss" etc etc

Well, we do live in a representative democracy, so the idea that the common man has no real sway on policy might be true to a degree - but that's the trade off of the system. Ideally people would take the responsibility to be an informed voter seriously, but that's not the world in which we live and any replacement system (like direct democracy) would suffer the same flaws.

And yes, things could be a lot better in this country, or indeed any country, the problem is not in identifying that things could be better but in a sane way to get from here to there.
Saying "things could be better" is very far removed from "here's how we make things better", sadly.

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe its the flouride talking i dont know.But i remember staying in paris for a week or two when i was younger and noticed alot of the french i met there were not afraid to stand up for injustices as an example to compare.

Flouride aside, the French do seem to love a good protest. The real question is how much change does it affect (if any) and how responsible are the French citizens in deciding what to protest?

Torakx wrote: »

I havent yet researched theories on applied anarchism,but to be honest democracy doesnt exist right now,its corrupted totally and a better system of self governing needs to be considered.

I disagree with this entire concept.
Democracy does exist, we live in one.
The fact that it isn't behaving how you would like doesn't make it suddenly cease to be.
And i don't think that changing the method of governance would be in any way effective in removing corruption or self serving interests.

Torakx wrote: »

Europe decides alot of things for the continent.We are bound by those decisions through different means.
Our corrupt politicians made promises in the name of the irish people and the irish being so laid back and ignorant allowed this to happen.

My response to that would be, and i mean this sincerely, "yes, and, therefore, so?"
We elect MEPs for that very reason, to make promises in the name of the Irish people. We also send them to argue on our behalf and to negotiate.
I can't really find it in myself to blame them for doing what we have elected them to do.
Now, i could find cause to blame if they weren't representing Ireland to the best of their abilities but, as I said before, i am hard pressed to recall an instance.

You mention the value of self education, and i kind fo have to agree, i think if people in general paid more damn attention to the European elections rather than viewing them as "that other election that sometimes happens" we'd be better off in general.

Torakx wrote: »

A small and comonly used example of europes negative effect might be the irish fisheries.Had we not joined europe we may have been able to keep our waters for ourselves.

I had a feeling this would be the example used. The basic fact is that we wouldn't have had to reduce the size of the Atlantic box if we'd stayed out of the EU. That's not in dispute
However, the worth we could have extracted from it is.
The figure itself fluctuates wildly every time it's brought up but I'm of the opinion that given the investment we would have needed to make in order to turn our fishing 'industry' into a proper industry would have made every successive government baulk. Having it and exploiting it successfully are two different things and i have very little faith in our ability and drive to do so.

But i am speculating after all, it's impossible to actually know.

Bumblegoose

FISMA wrote: »

I think you are the puppet master! So drunk on power that you're going to tell the whole world your secret online!

Well played puppet master!

Yes of course I the puppet master, a 16 year old shall control every move you make in your life mwahahaha..

Monty Burnz

Bumblegoose wrote: »

The reason would be that the puppet master would like to have control of everything I'd say.

In control of what, exactly? The FAS scandal shows just how little the government is in charge of anything.

And what is the motive to 'be in charge of everything'? Why bother?

Irish Sovereign

Correct. I also see that was your first post i must have enticed you to join and comment on the conversation :rolleyes: ah im messing welcome to the forum tho

Yes what I can I say.You have started an interesting thread & I had to throw in my 2 cents .

Monty Burnz

Irish Sovereign wrote: »

people of high positions within the countries are serving the interests of very wealthy international bankers.

There seems to be be an obsession with 'wealthy bankers' around here. Understand this: the bankers manage other people's money. The money is not theirs. The chief execs of big banks are wealthy by normal reckoning (earning say a couple of million per year) but nowhere near as wealthy as - say - Wayne Rooney, who gets paid 10 million a year or whatever for chasing a ball. And not even in the league of seriously wealthy people. The folks who won 180 million euros on the Euro millions will enter the Sunday Times Rich list - at number 430 or so. That's how many multi-millionaires and billionaires there are in Britain alone. Where is their influence? Or do all these rich people work together somehow?

Every time I hear 'wealthy bankers blah blah' in my head I'm hearing 'I don't know how banks work, and don't really understand the meaning of wealth'...

Torakx

@ Hooradiation
Well you argue your points well,but it appears to me you are doing a good job of dancing around the bigger picture or just not seeing it from my perspective.

Democracy definition:
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Now in some ways we have democracy but its only by a hair when you consider the politicians that are elected every single time betray the country and get away with it.And thats going by the second part of the definition.
If you go by the first part we do not have a democracy at all in my opinion.
However much that is debateable i still say that this country is slowly giving up its freedoms and rights as are the people in it.
Just becuase the majority are held ignorant and docile does not mean everyhting is ok.

You wrote alot and im sorry if i dont reply to all,i kind of sense a brick wall in front of me and would rather just agree to dissagree since we can dance all day lol

I would like to say just off the top of my head the Irish could have loaned out our waters instead of handing over jurisdiction to a foreign power.
That would have allowed us to let that industry flourish in this country while also giving us control over stock.Just a thought that came to mind now,im sure there would have been many ways we could have managed that situation.
We both knew i was going to mention it because off the top of our heads and everyone else here its the most obvious negative effect this country has had from th EU.
If i did a bit of refresher research id probably find alot more but time is precious

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Ye i suspect they own NAMA who bought up alot of property.

Oh my. NAMA is owned by the state - it's a state agency. This isn't exactly secret stuff - they have a website and all.

You have to understand how unlikely it is that you can unpick a vast unseen criminal conspiracy to control the world when you don't even know what NAMA (which has been in the news every day for 2 years!) is.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Many other decisions im sure pass down from europe.Regarding security,tax,our enviornmental care and laws etc etc.
Yes we may have had some help like loans and grants but i believe they must have come with a price.And i think we are paying it now just like we did in the 80's.

You are right, directives about the environment do come down from Europe (but not tax - that's definitely not allowed). I for one am glad that somebody forced us to protect our environment. The Irish government didn't give a toss about it until they were forced to.

Torakx

I am well aware of the popular and official view about NAMA thanks.
I dont have to subscribe to it.When they first brought it in, i did my research and am satisfied i know who is directing them.
You will dissagree im sure but its irrelevant to myself.im content with my view of the world and just enjoy sharing it or speculating here.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

I am well aware of the popular and official view about NAMA thanks.
I dont have to subscribe to it.

It's not a view - it's a fact. Do you think the idea that water boils at 100 degrees is a 'view'?

Torakx wrote: »

When they first brought it in, i did my research and am satisfied i know who is directing them.

Please tell us!

Torakx wrote: »

You will dissagree im sure but its irrelevant to myself.im content with my view of the world and just enjoy sharing it or speculating here.

Fair enough.

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

@ Hooradiation
Well you argue your points well,but it appears to me you are doing a good job of dancing around the bigger picture or just not seeing it from my perspective.

Well, feel free to help me see things from your PoV.

Torakx wrote: »

Democracy definition:
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Now in some ways we have democracy but its only by a hair when you consider the politicians that are elected every single time betray the country and get away with it.

I really do not see how this translates into a failure to have democracy. It could certainly be a failure of democracy but it comes back to the biggest strength of democracy - that everyone has a vote - is also it's biggest weakness.
It may not be ideal but it is, by definition, democratic.

Torakx wrote: »

If you go by the first part we do not have a democracy at all in my opinion.
However much that is debateable i still say that this country is slowly giving up its freedoms and rights as are the people in it.
Just becuase the majority are held ignorant and docile does not mean everyhting is ok.

Well, argumentum ad populum is never anything but a fallacy, but once again i am unsure of how any of this is evidence of an absence of democracy. Even if we assume that Ireland as a state has lost freedoms and rights (and even if we won't define said lost freedoms and rights) there is still an issue of how this translates into no democracy.
The constraints of being a member of the EU or those of an particular treaty isn't the same as a loss of democracy - democracy is not a license for a nation to simply do as it pleases.

Torakx wrote: »

You wrote alot and im sorry if i dont reply to all,i kind of sense a brick wall in front of me and would rather just agree to dissagree since we can dance all day lol

Not at all - you're under no obligation to reply to anything, after all.

Torakx wrote: »

I would like to say just off the top of my head the Irish could have loaned out our waters instead of handing over jurisdiction to a foreign power.
That would have allowed us to let that industry flourish in this country while also giving us control over stock.Just a thought that came to mind now,im sure there would have been many ways we could have managed that situation.

It's not a bad idea, although it's really a variant on the deal we got with the EU - but the problem with that is that even currently we lack the ability to police our seas. We could loan chunks of the old Atlantic box as per your idea, but i doubt we'd be able to keep boats from countries with whom we hadn't set up an agreement with.

I'm not saying that the fishing grounds idea is a total non-runner. With correct investment and government policy we probably could have done well out of - the issue is would it have been more than we received from the EU in terms of grants and trade AND would we have had the political will to make it happen.

Torakx

To monty burnz
No need to play silly games.
A scientific fact and a state of affairs with many different forms and possibilities are two very different things.The dynamics are not comparable.

As to who the trail for me started when this happened( http://www.businessandleadership.com/leadership/item/21602-nama-appoints-ex-goldman-ma ) and went on to greece and the bilderberg meetings that i think happened in spain back in 2001/2002 iirc

I have been through all this years ago and figured you all know what im talking about.I really dont appreciate having to go over all the stuff i have spent ages looking into for the sake of an arguement that isnt going to go anywhere
I just enjoy sharing ideas and hearing knew ones,i dont really need to hear what the majority think because that is already known and i believe mostly not the full story.
When i refer to something that isnt officially recognised its ussually because i have a suspicion there is alot more going on and have already looked at and dicounted the official story.

Mahatma coat

It's not a view - it's a fact. Do you think the idea that water boils at 100 degrees is a 'view'?

well its not a FACT either given that Altitude/Atmospheric pressure plalys a major part

it would be more prudent to tke the View that
Pure Water at Sea level under Normal atmospheric has been observed to boil at Approx 373K

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

To monty burnz
No need to play silly games.
A scientific fact and a state of affairs with many different forms and possibilities are two very different things.The dynamics are not comparable.

But I've shown you the legislation that founded NAMA. Unless you think that the legislation is a sham too, and the whole country with it? In which case, as has been asked here earlier, someone else already controls everything, so why would they be trying to 'increase' their power? 100% is as high as it goes.

Torakx wrote: »

As to who the trail for me started when this happened( http://www.businessandleadership.com/leadership/item/21602-nama-appoints-ex-goldman-ma ) and went on to greece and the bilderberg meetings that i think happened in spain back in 2001/2002 iirc

I don't mean to kill the buzz here with some common sense, but it's not really a huge surprise if a financial entity like NAMA hires someone with financial experience with one of the top financial firms.

You have to understand that the business world is - in some ways - much smaller than you might think. There are only 4 big auditors these days. There is only half a dozen big investment banks. You'll see their names crop up over and over again, because they are involved in every merger, every buy out, every bond issue, every share placement, every IPO. And guys who work for those firms leave after a decade or two for easier, well paid jobs in other industries. Goldman Sachs and these other investment banks are like business colleges, the same as the big 4 auditors are. You make your reputation there, then you leave for well-paid, cushier number elsewhere. It's not a conspiracy, it's economics.

Talk to someone you know and trust who has worked in that area of business - they will explain it a lot better than I can here. I don't work in that area at the moment, but I do know a lot about how it works.