This is one time I won't bash the "Families Are Forever" doctrine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/aLzaFRqrLhrV3-TlNEWb-zP9aSw=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QO77YYLQRNAKXAYH2ZDZNKXH6Y.jpg

Families reuniting in heaven is a traditional Christian belief. I believed it as a born and bred Catholic. Most Protestants believe it. The Bushes would have certainly believed it. I can guarantee that it will be mentioned at George Bush's funeral.

The Mormons are about the only ones who charge you lots of money for it, make you do a special ceremony for it, and threaten you that if you don't meet their terms, it might not happen.

...in order to sell the cure (i.e. the cure to the problem that they created by pulling the doctrine of eternal separation out of Joseph Smith's butt).

You can't have the patented Mormon sealing ordinances for "creating forever families" if you don't also first have the Mormon doctrine of eternal separation.

It really is insidious how they present it. Nobody stands up and says: "Whoa! Hey, hey, hey... Wait a minute! Where did this doctrine of eternal separation come from?" This doesn't happen because the LSD Church never really presents it clearly. Instead, they come to you with the doctrine of sealings for creating eternal families as though they are bringing you a special gift, and the whole time they're selling you on this special gift they're ACTING as though it's a given that the default situation is eternal separation. No need to go into detail as to how that works, where that idea came from or why it's better to be sealed into dysfunctional plyg families than it would be to have complete freedom of association in heaven.

So Robin, who died in 1953 aged nearly 4, will be reunited with her parents, who died in 2018 aged 94?
What child would like that?
She knew her parents as twentysomethings.

Also, what will heaven look like?
Like 1950s America or like today's America?
Would Robin feel at home in today's world at all?

So many questions.
Religions have no answers, other than "it will all make sense at the time".

If there is goodness in the Universe, Bush sr. is instead at the Pearly Gates apologizing for this comment:

"I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."

- George HW Bush, Aug 2 1988, after the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 people, including 66 children.

And that is the LEAST thing he had to apologize for.

I wonder why we don't see those 66 kids in the cartoon.

I know that when a person dies we are supposed to focus on the good things about them. He was exemplary in several ways. By comparison to today's standards he was, well, presidential and not a creep. The cartoon is supposed to make everyone feel nice. Okay, we get that.

America has a few things to apologize for and many things to be proud for, however, to flat out say he doesn't care about facts means you can't trust their judgment or motives. Maybe that's a job requirement for being a politician.

I was listening to NPR yesterday as I drove to see my 6-year old granddaughter in the starring role in a local production of "The Nutcracker."(at a local Catholic High school).

That's slightly exaggerated but she sure seemed to enjoy every minute of it. Her mom started about the same age and she was very emotional watching Miss XXXX starting about 10 years of doing this.

Anyway, NPR seemed to have lots to say about GWB, and his history and his family etc. I'd forgotten most of the stuff that they talked about but when they were talking about GWB and Barbara having regular conversations about how great it would be to see Robyn again, I felt like they were kind of overdoing it. Hard to explain, I guess.

Sounded like Fast Sunday meetings when I was 11-12, sister Musser would get up and talk her babies that she lost during birth. Never mind that she had 5 or 6 grown adult children who hadn't been to church in many years.

NPR treated you and their listeners like you are even younger than your daughter.

Believe me, I hate shitting on the ‘just passed’. And I hate bringing up the worst things about America, for I do not believe the worst that can be said are the truest things that can be said.

But c’mon, the American mainstream press dishes out nothing but pablum to a citizenry that not only deserves more and is capable of more, but also NEEDS far far more, if it is to exercise its proper function in a democracy.

This cartoon is beyond pablum, however. It’s at the level of Ensign and New Era. It’s beyond Disneyfication. It’s an insult. It’s just really really bad.

I’m with you, Dagny, I want politicians to care about facts. But really, why should they if the press doesn’t?

To be honest, I'm not sure we, the citizenry, ARE capable of more.

Generally the citizenry doesn't want the press to tell them all sides factually.

For starters, it appears the general citizenry doesn't have the attention span, time, interest, education or intellectual capacity to study everything factually.

They just want to be told whatever soundbite confirms their tribal preconceived conclusions.

We are a warring species fighting for resources so we can consume and breed uncontrollably forever. And then, we want to live forever with all our offspring in heaven! Screw all the ones we killed getting there. We're God's favorites.

Going To A Town

I'm going to a town that has already been burnt down
I'm going to a place that has already been disgraced
I'm gonna see some folks who have already been let down
I'm so tired of America

I'm gonna make it up for all of The Sunday Times
I'm gonna make it up for all of the nursery rhymes
They never really seem to want to tell the truth
I'm so tired of you, America

Making my own way home, ain't gonna be alone
I've got a life to lead, America
I've got a life to lead

Tell me, do you really think you go to hell for having loved?
Tell me, enough of thinking everything that you've done is good
I really need to know, after soaking the body of Jesus Christ in blood
I'm so tired of America

I really need to know
I may just never see you again, or might as well
You took advantage of a world that loved you well
I'm going to a town that has already been burnt down
I'm so tired of you, America

Making my own way home, ain't gonna be alone
I've got a life to lead, America
I've got a life to lead
I got a soul to feed
I got a dream to heed
And that's all I need

Making my own way home, ain't gonna be alone
I'm going to a town
That has already been burnt down


Rufus Wainwright

Would be great as part of a soundtrack to Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco’s Days Of Destruction, Days Of Revolt:

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/chris-hedges/days-of-destruction-days-of-revolt/9781568584737/

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder why we don't see those 66 kids in the
> cartoon.

BAAM! Now that would have been great!

He was the last head-of-state who served in combat in WWII, and went on to have a stellar career in business and politics. I state that, acknowledging that he was the son of Senator Prescott Bush, a major mover and shaker, and thus had a leg up. There were so many things that could have been touched on, even with a hagiographic cartoon.

There is this, when, with minimal security, he went into a combat zone in El Salvatore, and faced down armed death-squad thugs right in the face.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/419272-a-hair-raising-story-of-jungle-heroism-you-probably-never-heard-about

Yes, folks, it's interesting to notice how people who reviled him when he was in public life find nice things to say following his death. He's being brought back to Washington on Air Force One.

“George Herbert Walker Bush: ‘Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.’

That is a famous 1992 quote by George Herbert Walker Bush to Sarah McLendon, a Texas journalist who Bush had known for years and who was the grand dame of the White House press corps at the time. McLendon had asked Bush: ‘What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?'”

...41's Father, Prescott Bush:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

"It's a club and we ain't in it!"

Concerned Citizen 2.0 Wrote:

> "It's a club and we ain't in it!"


So... another Bonesman bites the dust.

May he rot in disquietude.

That Masonic cult at Yale has gifted our nation with George and many similar rotters.

...sshhh!!! Moderators are watching!!!

Oh, darn.

And I thought the skull and bones at Yale came from piratical antecedents. But then I guess pirates were all masons too, right?

I agree, however, that a good opportunity to conjure a conspiracy theory should never go to waste.

...OK...Lot's Wife......let's all try to keep our heads about us. After all, we're talking about American Dynastic Royalty, for God's sake!...not like just an average American; or like us.......geez!! What's next?...Barry Seal? God, I gotta' get off this bus at the next stop.......

CC, I don't disagree with the notion of a political elite: I don't disagree at all.

But Masonry? That just discredits the more important point.

elderpopejoy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerned Citizen 2.0 Wrote:
>
>...many similar rotters.

Like John Kerry?

A list of prominent Skull & Bones alumni:

https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-skull-and-bones-members/user-x

They're really all over the professional, political, and ideological maps.

My sentiments are best expressed by the great Groucho Marx, "I could never join an organization that would have me for a member." Consequenty, I turned Skull and Bones down numerous times.

Did you attend Yale, Caffiend?

And graduated Summa cum lousy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2018 01:15AM by caffiend.

That explains your eloquence.

And your love of Cole Porter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2018 01:16AM by Lot's Wife.

Seriously, I did attend a very selective small college in the Northeast (won't divulge). Unfortunately I drank very heavily and squeaked through, barely...eventually. I like to say, "I was there so long they had to either graduate me or grant me tenure."

I was brought up on classical music, opera [tip of the hat to Boner!), and Broadway (Rogers & Hammerstein, Fred & Ginger especially). Mary Baker Eddy, too. :+( ] I double-majored in History and English, but worked blue-collar all my life. I still maintain a Class A license and an LTC. Now retired, I'm finally doing something with my degree, writing.

the whole point of a secret society is so that members can be inserted into the whole range of professional, political, and ideological camps, so that they can engineer and control the outcomes of conflicts.

So you get a presidential election in 2004 where the two candidates in ostensibly opposing parties are from the same secretive fraternity at Yale University and whose attendance at Yale overlapped. S&B recruits only 15 members per year.

Conspiracy or no, it is odd that out of a population of 325 million, you end up with two guys from the same small, secretive and elitist fraternity as the only two viable candidates for the nation's highest office. And they essentially advocate for the same policies. Democracy in action, without any doubt.

Occam's razor: There is a socioeconomic elite that have the same background, attend the same schools, get drunk together, and celebrate boofage. There is no central organization and no system for coordinating activities.

They rise to the top of the political and financial world for the same reasons they meet in college: their parents are rich and have wide connections. They advocate similar policies because 1) some of those policies are in the national interest, and 2) others of the policies serve the interests of their socio-economic class.

There are, however, major exceptions. Remember FDR: a denizen of the upper class, related to presidents, and the sponsor of policies that directly contradicted the wishes of that elite. "A traitor to his class," he was called. How do you reconcile such occasional but contradictions as the socialism of the New Deal?

By recognizing that there is no conspiracy or organization, just similar backgrounds and inclinations that in most cases produce similar policy preferences.

Because it would never, ever, ever occur to a "socioeconomic elite" that they could ever, ever, ever in a million years, actually organize, coordinate and cooperate with each other to pursue their common interests at the expense of the unwashed masses. And it would never, ever, ever occur to them that they could use deception to make themselves wealthier and more powerful or to maintain their wealth and status by suppressing upstarts and competitors.

And all of the laws on the books that target criminal conspiracies do not really exist because everyone knows that conspiracies are not a real thing.

And the RICO laws (laws that were intentionally designed to uncover conspiracies in high and low places) are just figments of our imagination.

And rarely enforced anti-trust laws came into being for no particular reason because everyone knows that nobody at the top of the biggest corporations on the planet would ever meet in secret or knowingly act in concert toward common goals except as an accident. Secret principal-agent relationships do not exist.

We all know that the socioeconomic elite has less hierarchical organizational ability than a cabal of a local PTA members who conspire to secretly sabotage a candidate's campaign so that they can get one of their friends elected to the local school board.

I think you may applied Occam's razor in exactly the opposite direction of its real meaning.

One Nosredna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it would never, ever, ever occur to a
> "socioeconomic elite" that they could ever, ever,
> ever in a million years, actually organize,
> coordinate and cooperate with each other to pursue
> their common interests at the expense of the
> unwashed masses.

You assume they need to organize to do that rather than simply pursue their own interest and friendships with the power that came with daddy's tuition payments.


--------------------
And it would never, ever, ever
> occur to them that they could use deception to
> make themselves wealthier and more powerful or to
> maintain their wealth and status by suppressing
> upstarts and competitors.

Perhaps they don't need to deceive anyone. Perhaps they have the influence already and can do whatever the hell they want without too much deference to the "unwashed masses."


-------------------
> And all of the laws on the books that target
> criminal conspiracies do not really exist because
> everyone knows that conspiracies are not a real
> thing.

No one said criminal conspiracies don't exist and that laws aren't necessary. The point is that what the rich do in the US is public. It is through the parties and congress and the regulatory agencies. You are naive if you believe that the rich don't overtly shape the systems in ways that benefit them. So they have no need for criminal conspiracies.


-----------------
> And the RICO laws (laws that were intentionally
> designed to uncover conspiracies in high and low
> places) are just figments of our imagination.

RICO was written for organized crime. You know that, right? RICO can't be deployed against the rich--unless they happen to be nouveau rich who still have their ties to American and foreign gangsters--because the established rich have already influenced the laws to ensure that what they do is legal.


------------------
> And rarely enforced anti-trust laws came into
> being for no particular reason because everyone
> knows that nobody at the top of the biggest
> corporations on the planet would ever meet in
> secret or knowingly act in concert toward common
> goals except as an accident. Secret
> principal-agent relationships do not exist.

This is a better point. Of course anti-trust laws are generally not criminal and hence don't involve RICO and other conspiracy charges. But putting that aside, you are right that today is much like the late 19th century in the sense of concentration of power in several important industries. It would be helpful to see a new waive of trust busting.


----------------------
> We all know that the socioeconomic elite has less
> hierarchical organizational ability than a cabal
> of a local PTA members who conspire to secretly
> sabotage a candidate's campaign so that they can
> get one of their friends elected to the local
> school board.

Again, you presume a need for organization where one idoes not exist. If you own the political parties, you get to do things in the open: there is no need to act covertly. Cabalistic thinking may be fun, but it requires that one ignore what is blatantly obvious.


------------------
> I think you may applied Occam's razor in exactly
> the opposite direction of its real meaning.

Nope. Occam's principle is the recognition that sometimes people create unnecessary complexity and that that must be stripped away. If you don't understand that lax campaign finance laws and the bankruptcy and tax codes basically meet the needs of the elite, you should procure eyeglasses before taking a razor in hand.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One Nosredna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> You assume they need to organize to do that rather
> than simply pursue their own interest and
> friendships with the power that came with daddy's
> tuition payments.

You assume they wouldn't. Why would wealthy, powerful families and dynasties who became wealthy and powerful by managing corporations and empires and vast organizations not organize and continue acting in their own interests in a highly organized, systematic way? Your claim that they would do nothing but pursue their own interest and friendships in a haphazard way, leaving room for nothing but coincidental cooperation is not reasonable.
>
>
> --------------------
> And it would never, ever, ever
> > occur to them that they could use deception to
> > make themselves wealthier and more powerful or
> to
> > maintain their wealth and status by suppressing
> > upstarts and competitors.
>
> Perhaps they don't need to deceive anyone.
> Perhaps they have the influence already and can do
> whatever the hell they want without too much
> deference to the "unwashed masses."

So, according to you, they never used deception and coordination to amass their fortunes? It was all just hard work?
>
> -------------------
> > And all of the laws on the books that target
> > criminal conspiracies do not really exist
> because
> > everyone knows that conspiracies are not a real
> > thing.
>
> No one said criminal conspiracies don't exist and
> that laws aren't necessary. The point is that
> what the rich do in the US is public.

Say what? Everything the rich do is public? Perfect transparency? I want to live in your fantasy world.

It is
> through the parties and congress and the
> regulatory agencies. You are naive if you believe
> that the rich don't overtly shape the systems in
> ways that benefit them. So they have no need for
> criminal conspiracies.

Naive. That's rich. The rich always give full disclosure and there is no corruption in the parties, congress and the regulatory agencies. And I'm the naive one?
>
>
> -----------------
> > And the RICO laws (laws that were intentionally
> > designed to uncover conspiracies in high and
> low
> > places) are just figments of our imagination.
>
> RICO was written for organized crime.

What do you think organized crime is? Do you think when they bribe the mayor, take control of the local newspaper and rig an election, they aren't "conspiring"? You do know that organized crime is organized conspiratorial criminal activity. You know that right? You do know that the most successful organized crime families join with others in syndicates (an organization) and influence and buy politicians. When they pretend to go legit, they operate huge corporations.

You know
> that, right? RICO can't be deployed against the
> rich--unless they happen to be nouveau rich who
> still have their ties to American and foreign
> gangsters--because the established rich have
> already influenced the laws to ensure that what
> they do is legal.

Let's see the established rich have already influenced laws to ensure what they do is legal. Good point. To accomplish that, you would probably need a great deal of organization and coordination. And you would have to conceal your true agenda (setting up a legal system advantageous to a small group of people) in order to accomplish such goals. Seems like that would be described as...hmmmm...I know there's a word for that kind of behind the scenes coordination and cooperation to achieve an agenda that favors a small group at the expense of outsider. What is that word?
>
>
> ------------------
> > And rarely enforced anti-trust laws came into
> > being for no particular reason because everyone
> > knows that nobody at the top of the biggest
> > corporations on the planet would ever meet in
> > secret or knowingly act in concert toward
> common
> > goals except as an accident. Secret
> > principal-agent relationships do not exist.
>
> This is a better point. Of course anti-trust laws
> are generally not criminal and hence don't involve
> RICO and other conspiracy charges. But putting
> that aside, you are right that today is much like
> the late 19th century in the sense of
> concentration of power in several important
> industries. It would be helpful to see a new
> waive of trust busting.
>
Doesn't matter if anti-trust is criminal. It's aimed against improper collusion and coordination, including secret cartel building. Why is "conspiracy" such a dirty word for you. It's a real thing. That's why there's a word for it.
>
> ----------------------
> > We all know that the socioeconomic elite has
> less
> > hierarchical organizational ability than a
> cabal
> > of a local PTA members who conspire to secretly
> > sabotage a candidate's campaign so that they can
>
> > get one of their friends elected to the local
> > school board.
>
> Again, you presume a need for organization where
> one idoes not exist. If you own the political
> parties, you get to do things in the open: there
> is no need to act covertly. Cabalistic thinking
> may be fun, but it requires that one ignore what
> is blatantly obvious.

What is blatantly obvious is that people conspire at all levels of society to achieve objectives that they could not achieve if they were open and transparent, and if others knew they were working together. It's really simple. Your assumption that people at the very pinnacle of wealth and power would not ever secretly communicate and work together is odd.


>
>
> ------------------
>

Anderson, you are making this far harder than it has to be.


--------------------
> Why would wealthy,
> powerful families and dynasties who became wealthy
> and powerful by managing corporations and empires
> and vast organizations not organize and continue
> acting in their own interests in a highly
> organized, systematic way? Your claim that they
> would do nothing but pursue their own interest and
> friendships in a haphazard way, leaving room for
> nothing but coincidental cooperation is not
> reasonable.

I didn't say they do nothing illegal or covert. I said that the vast majority of what they do is open because the system is already shaped as they want.



-----------------
> > And it would never, ever, ever
> > > occur to them that they could use deception
> to
> > > make themselves wealthier and more powerful
> or
> > to
> > > maintain their wealth and status by
> suppressing
> > > upstarts and competitors.

Quite the contrary. As I said, the economic system already gives the elite the power to suppress upstarts and competitors. It's been that way for decades. There doesn't need to be a cabal to do this since it's already in place.



---------------------
> So, according to you, they never used deception
> and coordination to amass their fortunes? It was
> all just hard work?

Did I say that? Of course not. "Behind every great fortune there lies a great crime" may be an overstatement, but not by much. The fact, however, that individual businessmen or families in the past did criminal things and still have the resulting fortunes has nothing to do with whether they are committing major crimes today. What I said is that the vast majority of what they do today is legal, which is because they have already shaped the political and commercial systems.



-------------------
> Say what? Everything the rich do is public?
> Perfect transparency? I want to live in your
> fantasy world.

Did I say that? What I said was that if the laws have been written to protect existing wealth, to permit bankruptcy to shift the burden of poor decisions to the public, to make competition prohibitively difficult, there is little need to do much in secret. If the rich already control the political parties through legal donations, there is no need for cabals and illegal strategems.

That does not mean "everything" they do is public, just that there is no star chamber where Skull and Bones refugees from AA meet to chant Cole Porter songs and plot their next nefarious steps.


---------------------------
> Naive. That's rich. The rich always give full
> disclosure and there is no corruption in the
> parties, congress and the regulatory agencies.
> And I'm the naive one?

Nowhere did I say the rich give full disclosure, nor that the parties are pristine. To the contrary, I said that the corruption is so pervasive and so open that it is no longer considered corruption.


----------------
> What do you think organized crime is?

I can consult Black's Legal Dictionary, but so can you.


---------------
> Do you
> think when they bribe the mayor, take control of
> the local newspaper and rig an election, they
> aren't "conspiring"? You do know that organized
> crime is organized conspiratorial criminal
> activity.

It is not "conspiratorial" to buy a major newspaper and use it to promote your ideas, nor to funnel money through legal channels to influence the outcome of an election. Those are legal gambits conducted publicly. The scandal is that the laws were rewritten, or reinterpreted (2007), to create a situation where such things are legal.


----------------
> You know that right? You do know that
> the most successful organized crime families join
> with others in syndicates (an organization) and
> influence and buy politicians. When they pretend
> to go legit, they operate huge corporations.

Yeah, I saw that movie too. That doesn't happen much in the real world, though, at least not in the US. Organized crime families aren't really the political problem: the political problem is the established and socially acceptable families that operate primarily within the laws whose creation they financed over many decades.



-------------------
> Let's see the established rich have already
> influenced laws to ensure what they do is legal.
> Good point. To accomplish that, you would
> probably need a great deal of organization and
> coordination.

Not really. You need campaign finance laws that permit effectively limitless donations. You still get massive fights between the elites--the Mercers and the Kochs on the one side, the Wall Street dems on the other--but neither side will jeopardize the legal and political regimes that enable the upper class to maintain its dominance.




--------------
> And you would have to conceal your
> true agenda (setting up a legal system
> advantageous to a small group of people) in order
> to accomplish such goals.

Not true. You just have to spin your efforts: free markets, deregulation, money is political speech, constitutional right to guns, the cult of the entrepreneur. All these things are slogans that move politicians and voters. They can be done overtly and to great effect, especially when employed against poor and middle-class people who have neither the money nor the time to protect their own interests.


--------------
> Seems like that would
> be described as...hmmmm...I know there's a word
> for that kind of behind the scenes coordination
> and cooperation to achieve an agenda that favors a
> small group at the expense of outsider. What is
> that word?

No need for that word, whatever it may be, since the bulk of the effort happened over decades and openly. All that was necessary was marginal changes in laws and political norms. Believe it or not, there never was a coordination meeting between the Kocks, the Mercers, Ross Perot, the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, Soros, and everyone else. They each pursue their own interests, which overlap in many areas, and fight passionately over things that matter on the margin but do not jeopardize their positions in society.


-------------------
> Doesn't matter if anti-trust is criminal. It's
> aimed against improper collusion and coordination,
> including secret cartel building. Why is
> "conspiracy" such a dirty word for you. It's a
> real thing. That's why there's a word for it.

Oh yes, conspiracy is a real thing. But fatuity is a genuine pattern as well, in this case when people are so busy looking behind curtains that they can't hear what the men at the conference table are saying openly.


--------------------
> What is blatantly obvious is that people conspire
> at all levels of society to achieve objectives
> that they could not achieve if they were open and
> transparent, and if others knew they were working
> together. It's really simple. Your assumption
> that people at the very pinnacle of wealth and
> power would not ever secretly communicate and work
> together is odd.

I'm sure that sort of secret communication does occur. It's just that it happens on the margins of a system that is already largely constructed as they want. It's 90/10, and focusing on the 10 that may be secret and therefore exciting precludes concentration on the 90 that is ultimately much, much more important.

So I give up. I will humor you.

You wore me down. I admit it. There are no conspiracies. The richest and most powerful people in society never make plans together behind the scenes to accomplish objectives that serve their interests in any organized or systematic way that would be jeopardized if it were to become public knowledge. Nobody in charge of a newspaper would secretly conspire with an organized crime boss to write false or misleading stories. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never conspired to keep polygamy a secret from the public. The rich and powerful always announce their true intentions to the public.

Cabals don't exist because it would be a matter of public record if they did. All cabals would be recorded in the corporate registry where they were established. All coups against governments are publicly organized and announced. All backers of coups issue press releases announcing their support ahead of time. If a group of backers of a coup coincidentally all benefit from the aftermath of the coup, it wasn't a result of conspiring and secretly cooperating to achieve the coup. Nope. It was just a coincidence.

Your world view is 100% correct. Thank you for setting me straight. Now I will have to sell my tinfoil hat and burn my membership card in the Elvis UFO Pilot club.

Yeah, once again you mischaracterize what I said.

There are conspiracies; there are cabals. But often the biggest crimes, or things that should be crimes, happen in public. That's what I said.

Skull and Bones is a bunch of spoiled brats with daddy's credit card. It doesn't rule the world.

>"There are conspiracies; there are cabals. But often the biggest crimes, or things that should be crimes, happen in public. That's what I said."

I agree. The problem is that often people who point out those public crimes carried out in coordinated fashion by the super elite are accused of being crazy conspiracy theorists. Doesn't matter if it's not a theory. If it's not confirmed by 5 out of 6 talking heads on the major corporate TV and cable news programs, it must be a "conspiracy theory."

>"Skull and Bones is a bunch of spoiled brats with daddy's credit card. It doesn't rule the world."

A bunch of spoiled brats in a secretive fraternity established by an opium dealer. Spoiled brats who end up being strategically placed in the highest positions of society.

I don't believe anyone said that Skull & Bones people rule the world by themselves or even account for a huge percentage of world ruling. But the executive branch of the U.S. just in recent years was ruled by two Bonesmen for a total of 12 years and one of them ran for election against another Bonesman in 2004. That's just one obvious example of their influence. It looks like it would be reasonable to suspect that it is more than just a bunch of wacky rich kids having fun with their daddies' credit cards. They hold meetings in secret. But if you know what they talk about in their secret meetings, and it turns out that all they talk about is just stuff like organizing ping-pong tournaments and the hot new waitresses at Hooters, i'll be happy to learn from you.

If you expand the number of schools you are considering to include, say, Harvard and Princeton and Stanford, you would get a much higher percentage of not only the presidency but also Congress and the supreme court. It's always been that way: certain families dominate the great schools and the public sector. Sometimes an outsider family, like the Clintons, enters those august circles, so there is evolution over time. But the pattern remains the same and it existed long before the formation of S&B in 1932.

I would add two points. First, the jobs we are discussing are not necessarily the most important ones in terms of driving politics. The big financial institutions are important there, and that includes both old money and newcomers like the sociopaths who run Facebook, Tesla, and other technology companies. These people--particularly the social media magnates--have immense influence over public affairs. Somewhat less influential are the more traditional nouveau riche, including families that a couple of decades were nobody.

Always, but particularly since Citizens United, these families have had more power, I would venture, than even the Bushes and the Clintons. And these various centers of financial power have profound differences and sincere fights. But--and this is critical--they share an interest in keeping the political and legal systems supportive of wealth, and there they have succeeded. It is, in my view, this coincidence of interests between groups that have serious disagreements on peripheral matters that guides the evolution of the system and has created problems like the monopolies that you and I both disfavor.

The other point is that there are conspiracies in the public sphere that are unfolding contemporaneously. These are closer to the sort of thing that you seem to be describing, but it is again on the shady end of the nouveau riche spectrum. It would be like the Hearsts or the Annenburgs or the Kennedys from decades gone by, families that commit crimes and then buy entre into the elite if they can.

That does indeed happen. But it is infrequent and marginal to what I see as the larger problem, which is the convergence of interests between established power centers behind policies that advantage them at the expense of broader society. Most of their activities are indeed conducted publicly, sometimes due to legal changes over past decades that legalized what they are now doing. This a more substantial problem than the relatively few conspiracies and cabals that exist in the United States.

Exactly 3 S&B-men have been US presidents.
Two of them were Bushes.

So if S&B has been conducting a vast conspiracy to get its members to be president, they suck at it. :)

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are, however, major exceptions. Remember
> FDR: a denizen of the upper class, related to
> presidents, and the sponsor of policies that
> directly contradicted the wishes of that elite.
> "A traitor to his class," he was called. How do
> you reconcile such occasional but contradictions
> as the socialism of the New Deal?
>
"Please br'er Roosevelt, don't throw us into that briar patch!" That briar patch is the briar patch where politically connected corporations and upper-class types get sweetheart deals, lenient and blind eyes from regulators and on and on, while increased regulations tighten the screws on potential competitors. But I forgot, the socioeconomic elite would never be clever enough to coordinate with one of their own to come up with a scheme like that. FDR was a man of impeccable integrity and everything he ever said was 100% true. That's Occam's razor.

Why do you keep assuming that the elite have to coordinate to do what is already within their power? Why must there be a hidden conspiracy to achieve what they can, and do, achieve publicly?

The rich and powerful still have to give some consideration to public opinion. They therefore have to conceal naked power grabs and preferential treatment from friends in government.

Well-connected companies and individuals become fabulously enriched from preferential and no-bid contracts from the government in war time. (Read up on Bernard Baruch.) But they have to pretend that there is a public interest and that the friends and associates in government are acting in the public interest.

The revolving door between government regulators and the regulated industries is notorious and well-documented. But when they were making their special deals for special treatment, they were conspiring. Just because their subsequent relationship and cover became to obvious to hide does not mean that it did not start as a conspiracy. I doubt any regulator ever told their colleagues that they decided not to pursue an enforcement action or investigation of a company because the company promised them a high income job.

So in your world view, nothing is ever hidden from the public. Everyone is acting with full transparency. Nobody ever enters into secret arrangements behind the scenes. That's a baffling point of view that is at odds with most of history.

Have you ever read the histories of the royal families? Almost an uninterrupted chain of conspiracy and intrigue. And that's just the parts that they failed to keep secret.

I thought we were talking about the United States but now you write about the history of the European royal families. I was describing the United States where, again, where the conspiracies at Tammany Hall were a big deal.

In modern America there is not much of that for the simple reason that the bad guys, over many many decades, won.

Why would it be limited to the United States?

So you're saying that there are cabals and high-level conspiracies outside of the United States. But not possible in the United States?

So the bad guys won and they are so powerful now that they no longer need to coordinate their bad guy activities with any secrecy or hidden coordination between bad guys? Everything is 100% out in the open. Okay. If you say so.

We were talking about Skull and Bones; we were talking about the United States. The existence of cabals in Queen Elizabeth's court is irrelevant.

I also find it curious that I would write that in the US 90% of the misbehavior occurs in public and you would turn around and claim I said "100%."

That's the problem. This is a discussion about nuanced affairs. You seem uncomfortable dealing with such nuances as 90 does not equal 100, so we can't get anywhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2018 03:26AM by Lot's Wife.

I did not realize that it was 90% and not 100%. That is much more nuanced. I am overwhelmed by the nuance. Too much nuance for me. Who could ever handle that much nuance? You win.

...damn. After all that...no touched the Barry Seal drop.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're really all over the professional,
> political, and ideological maps.

Get hold of that video "Skulls" which brilliantly portrays the modus operandi of these bu**gers.

Coal to Newcastle.

If Caffiend was educated at Yale, he socialized with those people and knows them and their entitled, saturated ways a lot better than the tin foil brigade on Youtube.

The point is the mormons do not have a corner on the market of eternal families. It is a central tenant of Christianity. They only have a corner on the market of eternal families as extortion.

Instead of it being that we're all the family of God and will be part of the family of God for eternity, it's "you can only be with your family if you give us enough money." And then you must keep the rest of your family in line or kiss them goodbye.

How many times have you heard a mormon say, "I don't know how you get through death without knowing you're sealed, blah blah blah?" My question is how do you get through it WITH that belief? Because it's so tenuous.

I don't have any strong belief one way or the other about an afterlife. But I prefer to think that heaven would be where mutually caring relationships would endure and toxic ones would vanish.

Summer, and NormaRae--

Yours are my sentiments, exactly. You both expressed them beautifully. I'm going to archive your posts, with your permission.

I make fliers to keep in my secretary-desk, by the front door, to hand out to missionaries and other Mormons who drop by uninvited. I stand there, to make sure they read it. Every good salesperson should pay attention to feedback.

Anybody, your cartoon brought tears to my eyes.

It's incredible, what president would say, in order to prevent a war--I think I would say just about anything.

Absolutely!

Church's have to sell something to justify their existence. This is what ordinances really are. It's not enough to live a Christlike life. Nope. You need ordinances performed by those who hold authority. Of course it's going to cost you. The LDS church and other church's run on this model. A church gains nothing by people just behaving well. In fact, a church's nightmare is people doing just fine without the church or its ordinances.

Towards the end of your debate, as you got into the matter of "nuance," you came fairly close to agreeing with each other. On the matter of substance -- the power of the top tier of the "1%"--you're really in agreement. Your contention over the extent of collusion is a matter of degree.

Consider reading Peter Schweitzer's "Hidden Empires." Schweitzer goes after Republicans and Democrats both, showing how the political elite set up little-known, but not secretive, connections. From the Amazon promotional copy:

"President Donald Trump’s children have made front pages across the world for their dicey transactions. However, the media has barely looked into questionable deals made by those close to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, and lesser-known politicians who have been in the game longer. In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want to curry favor with their influential parents."

Related to this is the Wall Street culture of mutuality. Men (mostly) move frequently around various positions in the US Government (Treasury), the major investment banks (Goldman, Citi, etc.), the Federal Reserve, and the major "B" schools (Columbia & Harvard, mainly). A few years here, several years there, "consulting" elsewhere...How about a round of golf? And don't forget their children go to a coterie of schools, summer camps, internships, etc.

Getting the thread back to LDS: What's being discussed occurs among LDS royalty, just as it does in the Everytown Board of Zoning and Developoment. It's part of human nature: the rich get richer, and the poor get jealous. Rather than seeking to change things, most people want to advance to the next higher rank of movers and shakers.

Again, the LDS connection: By design or coincidence, Mormons have (like other minorities) gained some access to the true elite, the top tier of the top 1%. Romney is the most conspicuous, but there's also Clay Christensen (Prof, "B" School) and many others. Google "Mormons at Harvard," a real eye-opener.

My last thought about wealth disparity is a riddle:

Question: "What does a slave want, more than anything else in the world?
Wrong Answer: "Why, his freedom, of course!"
Correct Answer: "To be a slave driver."

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Towards the end of your debate, as you got into
> the matter of "nuance," you came fairly close to
> agreeing with each other. On the matter of
> substance -- the power of the top tier of the
> "1%"--you're really in agreement. Your contention
> over the extent of collusion is a matter of
> degree.

He and I didn't disagree so much over the extent of the collusion as over its nature. Anderson thinks there is lots behind closed doors, I think relatively little. People almost always pursue their own interests: if they share interests, they cooperate even without agreeing to do so.

Secret societies and meetings in smoke-filled rooms are rarely necessary.


--------------------
> Consider reading Peter Schweitzer's "Hidden
> Empires." Schweitzer goes after Republicans and
> Democrats both, showing how the political elite
> set up little-known, but not secretive,
> connections. From the Amazon promotional copy:
>
> "President Donald Trump’s children have made
> front pages across the world for their dicey
> transactions. However, the media has barely looked
> into questionable deals made by those close to
> Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Mitch
> McConnell, and lesser-known politicians who have
> been in the game longer. In many parts of the
> world, the children of powerful political figures
> go into business and profit handsomely, not
> necessarily because they are good at it, but
> because people want to curry favor with their
> influential parents."

I don't know what "questionable deals" the author describes, but this is closer to the truth. Watch the recent supreme court appointments. They don't coordinate with each other or with the members of the White House and Congress who support them, but these people all use the same vocabularies and vocal intonations because they grew up in very similar environments and know similar, and in some cases the same, people.

When some investment bank is looking to hire new people, they disproportionately and often unintentionally choose those with whom they feel comfortable. There is no need for overt collusion. Any woman or minority trying to crack into the commercial or political elite knows this.


-------------
> Related to this is the Wall Street culture of
> mutuality. Men (mostly) move frequently around
> various positions in the US Government (Treasury),
> the major investment banks (Goldman, Citi, etc.),
> the Federal Reserve, and the major "B" schools
> (Columbia & Harvard, mainly). A few years here,
> several years there, "consulting" elsewhere...How
> about a round of golf? And don't forget their
> children go to a coterie of schools, summer camps,
> internships, etc.

Yes. This is correct.


-----------------
> Getting the thread back to LDS: What's being
> discussed occurs among LDS royalty, just as it
> does in the Everytown Board of Zoning and
> Developoment. It's part of human nature: the rich
> get richer, and the poor get jealous. Rather than
> seeking to change things, most people want to
> advance to the next higher rank of movers and
> shakers.

Yes. This is how Utah, and the Romney circles, work.


-------------
> Again, the LDS connection: By design or
> coincidence, Mormons have (like other minorities)
> gained some access to the true elite, the top tier
> of the top 1%. Romney is the most conspicuous, but
> there's also Clay Christensen (Prof, "B" School)
> and many others. Google "Mormons at Harvard," a
> real eye-opener.

But a lot of those guys aren't really that influential. Christensen is famous and has some influence, but he is not 1%. Romney would be, since he's had two generations in Washington, big business, and finance. There are very few Mormons who have worked their way into the national elite.


------------------
You make good points, though. My argument is simply that the search for conspiracies is usually superfluous because most of what is really important is done in the full light of day.

It really takes generations for minorities to work their way into the highest strata. The Irish and Italians are there, long-time a-coming. I'd say Mormons are pretty much on schedule. I mentioned two high-profile LDS, by name, but just two. Try the Google search I suggested, and you'll see there's plenty of farm-team Mormons who will make the majors before long.

Keeping the thread on-topic, this brings up a major LDS issue that gets little attention: the financial/political LDS royalty with education and career experience in the East (Cambridge & DC, notably). They've been powerfully exposed to religious, political, and social liberalism, and can't help but be tainted by that. Many of this "flower of youth" folks will experience a disconnect between their traditional Utah-style conservatism and the liberal values they were immersed in as secular elites. Also, as they become successful, LDS (COB) will start recruiting them, and they'll bring this liberal taint into their Utah wards, stakes, districts, and, eventually, the COB. This prompts the question, who will control and influence the other--the conservatives or the young professional moving up (or out?)??

I use the word "taint" half-facetiously.
Hope you like my riddle (not original). Perhaps we should use that to start another thread on original sin. Much as I try to be original, I find all my sins are hopelessly derivative.

It is a good observation but, I think, probably wrong.

The LDS church has moved to the right over the last several decades. It was relatively liberal (by Mormon standards) in the 1950s and early 1960s but the moderates were eased out of power. Part of correlation was a shrinkage of the range of thought that is allowed in Mormonism, political as well as religious, and now there is very little diversity at the top.

There are certainly moderates who serve in lower levels of the hierarchy and they do rise in the organization, but the pressures to conform are intense and have an effect over 30 or 40 or 50 years. So even if people have been "tainted" by great educations, by the time they reach the vertiginous heights they have fallen into line.

More specifically, Oaks has a U Chicago law degree, Cook graduated from Stanford Law, Holland has a Yale doctorate, Bednar a Purdue doctorate, Christofferson a Duke law degree, Rendland did time at Johns Hopkins, Anderson has a Harvard MBA, and Gong has a Ph.D. from Oxford. These guys clearly managed to become cookie-cutter LDS leaders.

I suspect Gong is, by Mormon standards, somewhat liberal. But he'll almost certainly follow the path trodded by the others. By the time he gets any serious power, he'll have grown so old and be dependent on his colleagues that there won't be much impetus for change. The only thing more constant and predictable than the twelve apostles would be twelve corpses in their graves.

You're more familiar with the beast than I am, Lottie, so I'll defer to your conclusions. I did see this kind of social-cultural liberalization as Christian Science declined. There's a major difference: CS is a relatively softer cult without the powerful ecclesiastical and social control apparatus of LDS. As a group declines, some sub-group leaderships will try to reverse the decline, and expand their membership. Others (like LDS) will double-down and seek greater control over the remaining membership. Scientology seems to be similar.

But note that in my above post I referred to how Mormons tainted with liberalism may move up--"our out."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2018 05:13PM by caffiend.

Yes, I think "out" is what's happening in the LDS church.

It is not, though, just the tainted intellectuals that are headed that way; there was a day when outliers of all sorts could still feel like they had a home in Mormondom, when they could hope for reform from within. But those days are long gone.

I think the winning strategy for a tightly organized community (broader term than "cult") is midway between the Mormon and CS models you describe. Like any political organization, there must be structure but also responsiveness if it is to survive. No structure and people wander off, and too much rigidity and they are forced out. In other words, 1950s or 1960s Mormonism may have been a better format than what has subsequently developed.

But all this may be moot given the internet. I'm not sure any dogmatic cult can thrive in an environment of readily available information and support. . .

This has always (since I was growing up) been a topic of interest for me--one I became fascinated by early (largely because of the, old-fashioned to me, BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE set of books I kind of informally "inherited" from a couple of generations of older relatives).

This is one permutation of a deep and integral American social process: [in post-World War I terms] "How 'ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Pa-reeeee?"

As a culture, we Americans are infused with pride in our continued success in doing this, but in Mormon terms, I now see the inherent problem as caffiend lays it out:

What if, in an American context, "insular" is a prized feature (not a glitch).

What if the continuance of the sub-group DEPENDS on insularity for its preservation?

In small groups (the Amish, many of those in the hills of Appalachia, certain Native American pueblos, and so on), there doesn't seem to be that much of a problem. Some individuals eventually leave, most do not, life goes on. (Though Native Americans increasingly being elected, nationwide, to state and federal offices is going to have a predictable, but still unknown in its specifics, effect "back home.")

In other cases, though (the ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups of the northeastern USA, the conquistador-descended residents of northern New Mexico, and Mormons), it is obvious that deep, and now irreversible, changes are visibly underway--and these cultural responses have already, and will in the future, fundamentally change the home cultures forever.

Really interesting observations, caffiend. Thank you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2018 04:17PM by Tevai.

Remember Bush and Reagan didn't do anything about AIDS. They swept it under the rug.