I don't find him particularly interesting, either. I don't really get the hype, the stuff he says seems really banal and something anyone who looks back on traditional views of men and women could come up with and formulate. I also don't appreciate his need to constantly reference religion in his talks either. I guess it appeals to traditional Christians, but that's not my bag, baby.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
After some thought I think that Jordan Peterson is a cult leader, but a positive or benign cult leader depending on who you are. For a specific audience like young males, he is potentially beneficial, but for others outside of that target audience, he likely comes across as useless or annoying. I wouldn't say he is a negative cult leader as I envision someone like Jim Jones fitting into that mold as an extreme. Of course, there is more to this, but I am overgeneralizing.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
wheres the cult thoOriginally Posted by Raver
He has a big following online mostly. He does draw in big crowds for his lectures too.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
yeah but calling him a cult leader is a little bit extreme?
I was being partly facetious because some people like to call him that. I consider him as someone with enough charisma to attract a social following. Some would consider that being cult leader, others would not. I am not going to debate the semantics of that because I agree with your point. Regardless of whether he is one or not, I don't see him as someone that is negative.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
A lot of his fans are weirdly fawning and unquestioning but I have no idea if he wants that or encourages it on purpose. It sells books and speaking tours though, I guess.
I listened to some of his interviews a year ago. His appeal is in giving people a wake-up call, to make the effort to put themselves together and realize their full potential. His facebook groups were, at the time, full of posts about how his lectures have inspired people to quit using drugs, to save their family and marriage, to not go through with their plans for suicide, to continue with school instead of dropping out, to not lose hope after going bankrupt, and so on. There were lots of broken, distraught, lost people who posted sincere stories and crazy stories of what they had to go through in their lives, e.g.:
JP has said in some interview that he has received thousands of letters on the same topic, people expressing their gratitude for encouraging them to resolve their problems and miseries instead of getting stuck in them, which is what Peterson has said keeps him going, and not the political skirmishing and side effects of his talks. So idk, looks like the guy is scoring major karma points by being this kind of healing, psychology guru and having a positive impact on so many lives.
^ It's cool that he's able to do that, but are some people also hurt and put down by his messages? Maybe he's pretty harmless and he's not, which is why I'm asking.
The personal accounts and feedback to his lectures have rarely gone in the reverse direction, ie: "I've listened to JP's lectures, and now I'm using heroin and going through a divorce due to the effects of what he has said." The effects of his lectures have been affirming instead.
As to him being "not harmless" what do you mean by this? In what sense do you see him as posing harm? There are potentially multiple interpretations to this.
? What do you mean, what do i mean ?
I'm a skeptical person and when I see that there is a lot of controversy surrounding JP, there's an alarm in my head going off when people think he's harmless. I start thinking about the possible trans people that might have seen his messages and committed suicide or harmed themselves without anyone knowing or the other groups that got marginalized by his messages. You won't always see it either. Sometimes it's the little things that set people over the edge after they've had to deal with a bunch of other shit. I've seen youtube channels of trans people that have committed suicide due to being berated by the kinds of messages JP has stated about trans people, so I'm a little concerned when people say he's "harmless" or that he only "helps" people...
But I didn't mean this to be personal. Just asking. I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy critical skepticism...
I mean in what way do you see him as presenting harm? -> "Maybe he's pretty harmless and he's not"
From what I have seen of his groups and followers, there hasn't been a single post by a trans person saying that they are going to take their life due to JP's lectures. If there was indeed a case like this, it would have been shown all over the media by his opposition in order to shut him down. I understand you want to remain skeptical, but is there any specific evidence that goes into support of the claim that he has been harmful to trans people?
He can banter like an absolute madman.
This is what he got originally famous from...saying that transgenders are insane...why he feels the need to go after a minority of the population that already has a high suicide rate from societal rejection...
“The first problem is that the evidence that there are biological differences between men and women is overwhelming,” Peterson said.
“The vast majority of people who have a biological sex also claim that they are psychologically … the same as that biological sex,” the Peterson continued. “So the idea that they are independent is completely insane.”
All this after his angst against bill C-16...a bill that protected transgenders from discrimination and bigotry...not something that forced weird pronouns and threatened people with jail...
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-j...-c-16-correct/
If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:
- Section 718.2 is about what principles should be taken into consideration when a court imposes a sentence.
Section 718.2(a) is about how a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.
2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.
Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.
The House of Commons voted in favour of the bill in October. Next, it will go before the Justice Committee.
In Ontario, the Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination due to gender identity. In 2012, it became the first province to amend its human rights legislation to provide this protection.
What has Peterson said about Bill C-16?
“I think that some of the things that I say in my lectures now might be illegal,” Peterson says in this video (at 17:35). “I think that they might even be sufficient for me to be brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission under their amended hate speech laws.”
He says he’s concerned that something he says when he’s teaching can be “transformed suddenly into hate speech.”
...
In response to being penalized for discrimination against transgenders
“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”
Can nobody understand how petty and harmful a message like that is? This was intended to help a minority from discrimination...
Like...it's fine that you like him and he's intelligent and has a lot of good things to say...but this is what he got FAMOUS for...
And no, it IS NOT harmless...and he doesn't deserve that designation.
I don't think he is trying to single out transsexual people at all, but rather the politically correct language radical leftists tend to advocate. In the sense that he thinks a good chunk of those that tend to be on the extreme left use gender pronouns and other words as a form of enforcing social control and limiting free speech. Anyways, if a transsexual person wants to describe themselves as mtf or ftm then that doesn't really bother me.
However, when gender pronouns expand beyond that is when it starts to get ridiculous. Like gender pronouns including sexual orientation, which is silly. So his goal appears to be largely attacking the entire basis of expanding gender pronouns beyond male and female rather than transsexuals themselves. As he is against manipulating language to control behavior, which can be harmful in that it limits what people can say free speech wise.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
IEE
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Where do you get that Peterson says that "transgenders are insane?" Because that's not in the quote or video you referred to.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That might be the wrong video. But I was thinking back to this one. Starts at about 1:10
"the idea that gender identity is independent by biological sex is insane, it's wrong, the scientific data, they are clear, they are not only clear, they are clear beyond dispute" - JP
And he's actually very wrong. Trans women that are attracted to men have been shown to have a high degree of relatedness to female Sexual dimorphism. There have been numerous studies that check brain patterns before and after hormones and found they were either in between male and female or had patterns closer to female before being given hormones.
Now trans women that are attracted to women I think is a hotly contentious area because some people think they just have a fetish for being women. And I don't know that much about it to say one way or another, but it is a scientific fact that sexual dimorphism isn't always related to your chromosomes. Especially when you get people with XXY chromosomes or people that are XY with Androgen insensitivity syndrome where their body does not react at all to testosterone and they grow up feeling like women and believing they are in every sense of the word. I've even come across research that suggested certain genes to override certain sexual dimorphic hormonal cues in the body as well. And that most likely causes problems with gender identity.
I agree with you, but when he attacks transgenders as being "insane"; it's in the video below (starts about 1:10). And misrepresents the gender bill as something more than protecting transgenders, as instead something that will force you to call people silly names or get jailed/fined when that's not the case, he's not harmless.
He basically marginalized and invalidated transgenders, which already have a high suicide rate from societal rejection and are at risk for discrimination, to gain fam and notoriety. That's just not harmless, unless you don't care about them or honestly believe that wasn't in some way damaging to their minority that has been struggling for social acceptance for a long time.
To be honest, I was expecting him to be a lot harsher in this video towards transsexuals, but for the most part he seemed to be attacking the idea of having more than two genders rather than transsexuals themselves. So he thinks that gender should be limited to what you are biologically born to be and not what you think you are or you want to become. Towards the end he did look to be talking more harshly towards trans activists, which may or may not include transsexuals, but rather their idea of proposing more than two genders.
Anyways, I think overall most of his criticism is directed towards the idea of having more than two genders and trans activists that want to expand biological genders beyond two. I can see how you got the impression that he was attacking transsexuals towards the end of the video, but I don't think that was his intention. He just seems to be really against the idea of having more than two genders because his views on gender tend to be based largely on what you were born with. Basically, he wants to separate biological gender from gender identity and thinks that they should not be conflated.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
So finally got around to delving into Jordan Peterson's videos a bit. My opinion towards him, I think he generally has a good understanding of the issues that are going on, but he is too cowardly to delve into the truly controversial issues such as race, jews and their influence in society.
In this video for example, he acknowledges that jews are indeed massively over-represented in the upper class but then just stops and goes off tangents. He talks about the problems that exist and what we shouldn't do, but he seems very reluctant about talking about we outta do and when he does he simply adopts safe, vague, conventionally accepted standpoints.
For anyone looking for an honest, deep explanation for why the Jews where and are hated so much the first place and also how it's still relevant today I highly recommend this video.
"The idea that gender identity is independent of biological sex is insane. It's wrong. The scientific data are not only clear, but clear beyond dispute. It's as bad as claiming that the earth is flat..." - Jordan Peterson
How is this about criticism of having more than two genders? He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and where is this "scientific data" that he's talking about? And how can it be beyond dispute? No scientific data is "beyond dispute". He's clearly speaking from the authority of the Bible, where it may be beyond dispute.
His view of transgenders is something like "trannies", where basically gay guys dress and act like women. That's not what transgenderism is.
In his defense, if Jordan started attacking the Jews, it would basically be career suicide so I don't blame him. However, David Icke managed to do it in a way that wasn't distasteful though by separating the average Jew from the elite Jew with the notion of Zionism. The man does have crazy ridiculous ideas like his belief in reptilians ruling the world, but sometimes he hits the nail on the head in other ways.
A metaphor that I like to use is that the average Jew like the average Italian is harmless like any average person of any ethnic group, but the average Zionist (which are predominately Jewish) and the average Mafia member (which are predominately Italian) are extremely harmful, but in different ways. It's kind of genius too when you think about it, it would be like if the Mafia used the Italian identity to protect themselves from any attacks from the public, they'd basically be untouchable.
It has also the added bonus of people mistakenly attacking the entire ethnic identity instead of just the specific group of people among that ethnic identity.
It seems like Jordan believes that it's impossible to have more than two genders because he believes our gender identity is linked to our biological sex. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with him on this, but to me that strikes me as attacking the notion of having more than two genders rather than transsexuals themselves. I guess you could say by association or indirectly he is attacking transsexuals. So he's either very careful with his wording to not attack them for obvious reasons or it wasn't his intention to attack them.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Which is exactly where the issue with him lies. He'll only goes as far into digging into the truth as to where it doesn't threaten the integrity of his career. In other words, a coward who cares more about his well-being then inspiring real meaningful change, and thus, someone whom you shouldn't listen to seriously (although he does make really good points on safe topics).
At least Ben Shapiro is unapolegetic in his conservatism, doesn't beat around the bushes and try to pose as some weird radical centrist. Peterson is a traditional conservative, I think he's just afraid of the label and what it connotes so he beats around the bush and makes a fuss about being a "classical liberal" even though classical liberalism doesn't really exist anymore, as it was absorbed into other political philosophies around the mid 20th century via the Hegelian Dialectic. I find that people who adopt that label are usually either traditional conservatives or center libertarians.
Do you frequent /pol by any chance?
No
You sound oddly like one of them. Seriously.
I don't get why some people are obsessed with jews. Or rich people.
It's just scapegoating.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
I think the issue is a bit more complex than that. Jews are over represented when it comes to banking and in the upper class. It is important to note that they aren't the only ethnic group that is in banking and in the upper class though, you will find many other ethnic groups in it, but less represented. Anyways, the vast majority of Jews are basically harmless benign people that are just looking out for their families. It is only a very small fraction that are nefarious in terms of using their banking and financial influence to control politics and society. You can use this analogy with almost any ethnic group so I will use Italian and Mexican since those are a part of my ethnicity.
Most Italians and Mexicans are like most Jews harmless benign people that are looking out for their families. However, you will find a small fraction of Italians that are involved in the mafia and a small fraction of Mexicans that are involved in the drug cartel. So, it stands to reason that there is a small fraction of Jews that are involved in the banking cartel or mafia or elite. Their means of coercion aren't as direct or violent, but it exists in a more indirect and hidden form. Also, there are several non-Jew ethnic groups that are involved in this sector too, so to single out Jews specifically would be silly. Most of the Jew banking families are listed as American, but there are some Jew banking families listed as European:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_families
I think the issue lies when people ignore simple facts like Jews being over represented in finance, banking and the upper class, but also when people distort that fact to attack all Jews, which is basically what ****** did. So what ****** did was obviously wrong because he went after every single Jew (guilty or not) instead of the small fraction of ones that were responsible for causing financial problems in Germany. It would be like if the Italian government decided to crack down on the mafia by exiling or killing every single Italian or if the Mexican government decided to crack down on the cartel by exiling or killing every single Mexican. It seems absolutely ridiculous, but that's what ****** did and the only reason he got away with it at the time was because Jews were a minority in Germany. It's basically collateral damage taken to the extreme.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
120+ national expulsions? Are we maybe doing something people don’t like? No, it’s everyone else who is wrong.
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
@Raver, I think we might be talking about different things.
My point is basically that alot of people nowadays are calling for revolution, they are calling to 'overthrow the rich', etc. I keep hearing it, for example, with the yellow vests in France. And hell, I see alot of messages calling for revolution against the rich, the "oligarchy" etc on this forum, though I am not targeting anyone in particular when I say this. They usually do this because their own economic or life situations are going nowhere, and people who are in frustrating situations usually look for scapegoats. I'm not trying to be demeaning towards these folks when I say this, frustration is human and everyone has a breaking point.
The problem with this revolutionary attitude (and no, I didn't put revolutionary in quotes because I do think we are living in times which could escalate into a revolution, though what form this will take is anyone's guess at this point), as I see it, is twofold. First, the rich did not contribute to the problems of the poor, contrary to popular belief. Material wealth is not limited like a pie where one having more means another having less; wealth is not a zero sum game. The reason so many people think it is is because they think there is a one to one correlation between raw materials, resources, and capital. So, they think, because there is such a gap between the wealth some rich people have and what they have, they think they have been 'robbed'. But that's not true, in fact they are not poorer because the rich are richer, they are merely poorer by comparison. But these misconceptions persist, and are used to justify an eat the rich mentality, where all that is bad is blamed on the rich, finance, the banking system, possibly the 'illuminati" or Jews. So they are calling for a revolution against people who haven't hurt them (even if the rich often don't care about them or understand them or their situations, the rich tend to talk down to them etc, this isnt the same thing as hurting them).
The other problem is tied to the first, which is that it's not going to help them (the poor) anyways. Blaming others for your probelms never does. Note that I'm talking about scapegoating the banking system, finance, etc, I'm not saying that nothing should change or that nothing could help those in crappy situations - certainly things can't (and really won't, no matter who tries what) stay status quo, but having an 'eat the rich' mentality is not going to help anyone, rich or poor.
As far as Jews being highly represented in the banking and finance systems, that's a fact, but since the blame that these things get is related to conspiracy theories, I don't really see the problem. There are crooks in the finance and banking systems, that much is true, but that's not all there is either, so comparing it to a the mafia or drug cartel is kind of inaccurate, imo.
Edit: Also, another problem I think is that the finance system is extremely complex and difficult for the average Joe on the street to grasp. First rule of human nature: we condemn what we don't understand. Everyone loves a company like Apple, for example, because they can see the things it produces, but they hate the stock exchange that makes it possible for a company like Apple to operate on a global scale. Therefore, since we don't understand how it works, we imagine some kind of shadowy cabal of world leaders all performing human sacrifices to the Christian devil (or whatever works in the collective imagination nowadays) in the name of fucking over "the little guy", the average Joe on the street who imagines himself a victim of Jews and of the dark mandates of the banking and financial system.
Last edited by Ave; 01-07-2019 at 09:02 PM.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Fair enough, I see your point. I am comparing crooks in the finance and banking system to the mafia or cartel just to illustrate that there is only a small minority of Jews that are harmful like any ethnic group, but of course the issue is more complex than that. I think most of the ire and hatred is drawn towards the rich or upper class because they see the gap between the rich and working class/poor widening rather than shrinking. When you look at statistics, that certainly is the case in terms of inflation increasing:
https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/..._inflation.jpg
However, it's not just because of inflation, it's salaries not keeping up to inflation that is the real issue so this is where the anger at the upper class or rich lies because workers are gradually getting paid less and less in relation to the cost of living.
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conten...e_adjusted.png
Essentially, the main issue is that our salaries are not keeping up to the rising cost of living due to inflation:
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/be/14/36/b...-of-living.jpg
So 60 years ago in 1958, you can buy yourself a house at a third of your salary, where as nowadays that is obviously not the case.
Now, I guess you have a point in that people need a scapegoat for this issue and they can blame the Illuminati, the Jews or whatever. However, if it is happening as a mere consequence of Capitalism is difficult to believe for many people including myself when there is plenty of evidence of a corporate oligarchy existing. Capitalism has been warped into something hardly resembling Capitalism anymore and rather a system that serves corporations and the government over the common people via many laws that have been introduced in recent history.
So it's highly likely that the system is corrupt and serving a financial elite of some sort. The debate comes down to who they are and what their intentions are. Also, perhaps they are not one singular unified entity, but rather several competing entities among several ethnic groups that are seeking to undermine the general public for their own benefit, but also to undermine competing groups. I think that's why people are upset at an oligarchy or the 1% or whatever because they are the benefactors of the slow and steady loss of the public's purchasing power and income.
The issue can be as simple as a group of multi-millionaires and billionaires seeking to increase their power and wealth at the expense of the general public, which is probably what a sizable amount of people that were in their position would likely do too. It's not as flashy or enticing as most conspiracy theories, but practically speaking it is much easier to prove. Even where I live and work for example, I've already seen how local billionaires and multi-millionaires use their wealth to own and control the land that they own for their own benefit.
There's nothing malicious about it mind you, but I guess people get upset because they see how the system favors those that have power and wealth more than those don't have it. Also, it would be a very strange coincidence if the system wasn't built to be that way by the wealthy and powerful that had the wealth and power to manipulate the laws and the system to be that way, but rather that the system happened to become that way by mere circumstance rather than it being deliberate.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Perhaps some people are obsessed with the rich because working and middle class incomes have been stagnant the past 40 years while the economic elite's income has increased exponentially? Perhaps some people hate the blatant anti-consumer practices going on (ex. comcast's monopoly or the shitty food at places Mcdonald's). Perhaps some people are tired of living pay check to paycheck, working jobs where what they do is detached form anything personal and meaningful? Perhaps people are tired of the lobbying going on, where the rich are using their wealth to influence and corrupt government?
Much more I could go about. And while yes, simply antagonizing all rich people like the communist did would lead to disaster, the sad, meaningless, dog-eat-dog way we live now isn't the way people have always lived throughout history, nor is it the only way we have to live now.
Watch the video I just posted about why ****** hated jews. It immediately confronts the elementary school idea that ****** hated jews just because he was jealous or whatever and then it goes into depth about actual reasons he hated jews. Whether you think the holocaust and all that was justified is another debate of course, but believe or not there were actual reasons he hated the jews that go far beyond the primitive notion of needing a scapegoat.
You make some good points.
I agree that our salaries aeren't keeping up with the rising costs due to inflation, and that that's a very good cause for creating the kind of resentment we have today. I see it myself when I go the grocery store, everything is so expensive and yet salaries are not rising. I don't know why this is exactly, I am not an economy expert and I know different schools of economics will have different takes on why this is, anyways.
The problem, I guess, as I see it, is like you say that we cannot define or identify who is causing these problems, so it starts to sound like a conspiracy theory, furthermore, even if saying you think the system itself is rigged to favor the rich and powerful, once you say you don't know how or by who, this opens the territory for conspiracy theories of all sorts, simply because what we are talking about is poorly defined. So even if people's intent isn't to stir conspiracy theories, the Rothschild conspiracies start to spread.
That said, I think the problem probably lies in the fact that big corporations tend to partake in shaping the regulatory status quo. Not surprisingly they almost always seem to defend the regulatory status quo, too. It seems pretty clear that big companies often favor regulations that push competitors off the market, hence alot of regulation just becomes the opposite of what people who usually advocate for regulation (ie almost everyone) intend. How this ties in to the question of inflation I am not sure, but when there is less competition between economic actors of the same sector, salaries tend not to rise, since there is no incentive for employers to do so. Where there is competition, you wanna raise salaries of your employees so they will work for you rather than go work for your competitor.
Last edited by Ave; 01-07-2019 at 09:52 PM.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Exactly, most conspiracy theories arise as an explanation of what is happening today in society and economically. The economy and government is heavily complex so it is convenient to use a conspiracy theory to explain it all, but is it valid? It's very difficult to say because concrete proof does not exist, but rather speculation and outdated information.
Regardless, there is concrete proof for things that are known to exist for sure such as CIA atrocities, the NSA undermining our freedom and security, corporations using their power to influence politics and law, secret societies like Skull and Bones being utilized to promote influential politicians (Bush vs. Kerry 04 election was between two Skull and Bones members), the mainstream media being owned by corporations to propagate their agenda and the gap between the rich and the working class/poor widening, while the middle class slowly starts to vanish.
I think one of the few visible concrete proofs of wealthy and powerful people congregating to discuss world matters or rule over the world depending on your point of view is the Bilderberg Group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Meeting
Is it merely the world leaders in finance and politics congregating to discuss world affairs amicably or is there something more sinister behind the scenes? That is completely up for debate.
Last edited by Raver; 01-08-2019 at 12:00 AM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
If you even think that merits a debate then you have a serious problem.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
