Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The system is. That is, the Monetary System.

Globally, the monetary system does support a ruling class, through business cohesion, that is made up of 0.6% of the global population - therein lies many many wealthy families that hold about 39% of the worlds resources for themselves, given the relatively superior ability to organize .6% as opposed to 99.4%, the rest of the earth's population could very well under their subjugation.

The first paper money was invented within the Mongol/Ming Dynasties in 1110 BC.

What is .6 x 1110?

In the modern world, it is no over-exaggeration to claim that money is a Beast.

If a theoretical ruling class organization's intelligence reads me saying these things. I dare you to **** with me. Commit your grave mistake. I'm all alone, yet I will bring you to your knees.

I can help. Send me all of your money.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can help. Send me all of your money. Money can only help the 1%, dolt.

The key to taking down the top 1% is information overload. Singularity level complexity within the monetary system would be untenable, even for the 1%. It's not chaos when something inhuman is running it, this thing is not concerned with ruling resources, just managing to the extent of sufficiency - something the human population would throw off. Humans are incapable of sufficiency, as Carl Sagan said, it will be our descendants who are not us, but a species very like us, with more of our strengths, and fewer of our weaknesses.

Huh, this is strange. There are about 42,000,000 people in that .6% of the ruling class.

Exactly that many people were killed on black Friday. I remember driving on black Friday to workout, first time I almost wrecked bad, barely avoided a head on collision with someone literally in my lane, there was a ton of police vehicles by the library I usually go to, something was different that day. Ominous.

People.

Originally posted by Oneness
Huh, this is strange. There are about 42,000,000 people in that .6% of the ruling class.

Exactly that many people were killed on black Friday. I remember driving on black Friday to workout, first time I almost wrecked bad, barely avoided a head on collision with someone literally in my lane, there was a ton of police vehicles by the library I usually go to, something was different that day. Ominous.
lol

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=70

Originally posted by Oneness
Exactly that many people were killed on black Friday. http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/51f7b9e3ecad048f7f000005-480-/the-onion-logo.png

I thought it was just clueless politicians and grandparents that got fooled by the Onion.

Whatever, 42 million, that is exactly .6% of the population.

Did anyone else notice that things were off that day?

Legitimately, exactly 42 million is the exact number of immigrants that fled to other countries including America due to foreign natural disasters!!!

Exactly 42 million Americans are now on food stamps.

There is more credibility to that number of people, composing the .6% of the ruling class, than you'll give credibility for. It is credibly ominous - a religiously ominous sign.

Originally posted by Mindship
People. Not all people, I believe an organization with total intelligence on global affairs led by the heads of the wealthiest families on earth - whose internal population consists of 42 million people. Do they not have the capacity to organize and influence the earth in secret? They have 39% of our resources!

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=70 Can I request this be bumped to the conspiracy forum???

Oneness, 42 million people DID NOT DIE. The Onion is a spoof news paper.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oneness, 42 million people DID NOT DIE. The Onion is a spoof news paper. I concede on that particular instance being a hoax.

I'll also admit I was didn't even read the article, considering that it would be the greatest tragedy in American history. I thought it was a global culmination of deaths in that one day.

EDIT: GHENGIS KHAN killed about 42 million people in his lifetime!! He killed over a million in one single day the Afghanistan Massacre!!!!

Originally posted by Oneness
I concede on that particular instance being a hoax.

I'll also admit I was didn't even read the article, considering that it would be the greatest tragedy in American history.

Don't worry about it! The Onion has even fooled world leaders.

http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/kim-jong-un.jpg

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't worry about it! The Onion has even fooled world leaders.

http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/kim-jong-un.jpg



I'm not that stupid!

Originally posted by Oneness
Can I request this be bumped to the conspiracy forum???

You can. But not by me; I'm not a global mod.

Btw, your theory is dependent on randomly pulling the number 42M out of random sociological and historical data. They might not all be the Onion, but each is dubious for its own reason. What's the endgame here? Satan returning because 42 is popping up a few places?

Also, you may have discarded the Onion link, but the fact that you used it in the first place speaks to a much, much more disconcerting trend in your research habits (or lack thereof) and threshold for belief.

Originally posted by Oneness
I concede on that particular instance being a hoax.

I'll also admit I was didn't even read the article, considering that it would be the greatest tragedy in American history. I thought it was a global culmination of deaths in that one day.

EDIT: GHENGIS KHAN killed about 42 million people in his lifetime!! He killed over a million in one single day the Afghanistan Massacre!!!!

Not helping your case.

Also...You avoided reading an article because it represented potentially the biggest modern tragedy of our era?! Just gonna bury your head in the sand on it, but still post is as evidence of your half-baked conspiracy theory?! That's like the oddest contradiction I've ever seen. "I refuse to read this, but it supports my point."

Also, what does Ghengis Khan have to do with this? And how do we know it was 42 million? Was anyone counting? What were the census numbers from the era? Is this a sign of end times, or a heavily approximated snippet from an unrelated historical period? More baseless drivel. Or was it just to compare it to what you thought was the legitimate Onion figure? If so, it changes none of my points.

Digi, 42 is also the answer to the ultimate question in the Hitchhiker's Guild to the Galaxy. That is probably why the Onion used the number, but I don't really know.

Yet he was fooled by The Onion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Digi, 42 is also the answer to the ultimate question in the Hitchhiker's Guild to the Galaxy. That is probably why the Onion used the number, but I don't really know.

But all the links he's citing are 42 million, not 42. The Onion would have been more obvious if it had been referencing Hitchhiker's. They aren't known for subtlety. Thus, I wouldn't look this deeply into it. Anyone can do a google search and find hits for most round numbers.

See, watch...

*Googles 42 million*
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenfisher/2013/11/27/turning-1000-into-42-million/

What's this?! Forbes is telling you how to make 42 million? Money really IS the Beast!



It's also relevant to note that actually doing this - Googling 42 million - turns up about 4 links debunking the Black Friday thing before it gets to anything with actual substance.

Originally posted by Digi
Btw, your theory is dependent on randomly pulling the number 42M out of random sociological and historical data.

No it's not, my theory is dependent on modern society supporting .6% of the populace - and that portion's ability to create an organization that can manage the globe by more effectively utilizing nearly half of its resources.



Not 42, 42M is the number of people in that .6% pool. I'm using numerology. Paper money was first conceived in 1110 BC, first used in the Ming Dynasty at around 1128 BC. Multiply 1110 times .6 and you get the number of the beast.

Paper money is now the premier currency used supporting this ruling class, and they have the ability through business to keep themselves on the upper tiers of society at the expense of the majority do they not?

But as for 42 million people affected, 42 million people are on food stamps, natural disaster displaced 42 million people.



It may have been, the estimate is "over 40 million" in his lifetime, over 1 million in a day during the Afghan massacre.



The Onion hoax was probably inspired by the number of Americans currently on food stamps.



Which don't address my main point, only the ominous figures I give to hint at a biblical meaning. I know you're an atheist and despise such thinking or use of signs, I'm not asking anyone to believe me because of ominous signs, I'm just putting them out there.

What ominous signs? You strung a few numbers together, and found a few ways to apply it to history.

Repeating the Khan statistics doesn't make it valid to this discussion. Why bring it up?

You're guessing now with supposing the origins of the Onion thing.

Again, google ANY denomination of million. Then craft a theory out of random, unconnected stories. That's all you're doing.

Because, let me read the OP again to be sure, you're taking a year from the Ming Dynasty, multiplying it by the percentage of people that hold roughly 39% of the world's resources in 2013, and saying it's possible evidence for "The Beast"

...does none of that strike you as a stretch?

Originally posted by Digi
...does none of that strike you as a stretch?

That's not evidence.

It's numerology, it's signs, it's using religious methods to bode at divine warnings.

That's all.

I have no argument with your disapproval of using signs, and I'm not trying to argue at the moment. I do not see a point.

I'm just asserting the possibility, hoping to spark an argument that I might come back to and participate in later. But not with that dogma, but with legitimate sources indicating illegitimate practices - or of this secretly centralized intelligence organization purportedly exploiting nearly half of earth's resources.

I entertain the possibility of divine warnings, but do not claim them as fact or tie them into the facts known.

Originally posted by Oneness
That's not evidence.

It's numerology, it's signs, it's using religious methods to bode at divine warnings.

That's all.

I have no argument with your disapproval of using signs, and I'm not trying to argue for or against the possibility of an organized upper class. I'm just asserting the possibility.

Numerology isn't stringing things together randomly. Or if it is, it's pathetic.

Because what you're doing is spouting nonsense and calling it numerology. Find some actual evidence of your overarching point and we'll talk. Something that, ideally, doesn't involve an arbitrary number of wealthy people multiplied by the f---ing Ming Dynasty.

....

Ghengis Khan killed 40 million people.

Gabe Newell has the same number of syllables in his name as Ghengis Khan.

Steam just had a sale where you got 37% off of 3 games.

40 - 37 = 3

Half-Life 3 confirmed!

...

I'm sorry, but I see no better response than humor to an OP theory that is so patently ridiculous it can't be taken seriously.

Think critically...what other explanations exist for the data you're using? What reasons might your theory be wrong? Does your theory actually have explanatory power, or does it work backward from a premise and find facts and figures to fit the assumption? What type of additional evidence would help confirm your theory? Is any of that available to us? These are the questions you should be asking. Not "Does Ghengis Khan and some wealthy people mean the return of the Beast?"

Because, here's the thing, some conspiracy theories might be onto something. Not most, but some. But very, very few are onto something for the right reasons. And if you have any truth to your theory, it's certainly not anything to do with the invention of money in the year 1110 or the number of people Ghengis Khan killed.

Originally posted by Digi
Ghengis Khan killed 40 million people.

Gabe Newell has the same number of syllables in his name as Ghengis Khan.

Steam just had a sale where you got 37% off of 3 games.

40 - 37 = 3

Half-Life 3 confirmed!

FINALLY.

Originally posted by Digi
doesn't involve an arbitrary number of wealthy people multiplied by the f---ing Ming Dynasty.

No, multiplying the percentage by a date in which currency was first postulated, not the Ming Dynasty. Again, that portion wasn't argumentative to the idea of a secret society. To be clear, my thesis is that a secret society is very possible, not that the monetary system or the ruling class is the anti-Christ of Christianity.

In the religion forum, this thread is entertaining (not arguing for or against) the possibility of the anti-Christ of Christianity, in the conspiracy forum, this thread is arguing the case of the plausibility of the "Illuminati" archetype.

Originally posted by Oneness
No, multiplying the percentage by a date in which currency was first postulated, not the Ming Dynasty. Again, that portion wasn't argumentative to the idea of a secret society. To be clear, my thesis is that a secret society is very possible, not that the monetary system or the ruling class is the anti-Christ of Christianity.

In the religion forum, this thread is entertaining (not arguing for or against) the possibility of the anti-Christ of Christianity, in the conspiracy forum, this thread is arguing the case of the plausibility of the "Illuminati" archetype.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're unable to grasp the larger meaning of my posts, and equally unable to think critically about your ideas. Either way, I'm done.

But it's Christmas time. Let's entertain the possibility of something more plausible...like a physics-defying immortal toy god that screams through the heavens flowering gifts to first-world countries.

Originally posted by Digi
You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're unable to grasp the larger meaning of my posts, Or option 3, I'm not getting into it right now. As I said.

Originally posted by Digi
Because, here's the thing, some conspiracy theories might be onto something. Not most, but some. But very, very few are onto something for the right reasons.

Go on...

Originally posted by Oneness
Go on...

No. Show me you understand my criticisms of your idea, and address those criticisms. Until you do, there's no incentive for me to interact with you.

Originally posted by Digi
Think critically...what other explanations exist for the data you're using? What reasons might your theory be wrong? Does your theory actually have explanatory power, or does it work backward from a premise and find facts and figures to fit the assumption? What type of additional evidence would help confirm your theory? Is any of that available to us? These are the questions you should be asking. Not "Does Ghengis Khan and some wealthy people mean the return of the Beast?"

Nothing else, there's one explanation - supported by the increasing amount of wealth the top 1% possesses: that the upper class has been gaining ground since the mid 70s.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rich-Get-Richer-the-P-by-Dave-Lefcourt-101013-220.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/americas-sinking-middle-class.html?_r=0

But how in the hell is this possible when the entire global economy has been sinking - because the majority of people have less wealth to put back into the economy - for nearly half a century now.

Think, the rest of the world has been allowed funding for R&D programs. Skipping the fact that America has given NASA to another country (the coop de grass of this whole debacle), lets take something that happened back in the 60s for example. When physicists wanted federal funding for the super collider, they were laughed at. But the same America has been paying for and benefiting from the Large Hadron built overseas.

This makes everything less nationalized, more capitalized.

The Federal Reserve System, every single other major nation has sunken their teeth into something originally American.

Think about it. Why? Why in the world hasn't any government anywhere done anything to liberate the lower classes?? I mean, how hasn't this started a world war? The collective of 99% of human beings on earth certainly have the capability to start one, don't we. It's not a stretch that the system is becoming increasingly corrupted by money, and the wealth of the top 1%. That's not possible without organization. We can't even organize a thing because there's no communication between so many people, and there's potentially absolute communication between the upper echelon of society. You know, suppression of thoughts, of awareness, a global apathy.

Now, I welcome you to pick that apart, but I'm curious where your stance on this conspiracy is. You claimed that very very few people are on to something for the right reasons, who? What were they on to?

Originally posted by Oneness
Now, I welcome you to pick that apart, but I'm curious where your stance on this conspiracy is. You claimed that very very few people are on to something for the right reasons, who? What were they on to?

I said they might be. It was a deliberately vague statement, because I can't dismiss all conspiracy theories simply because I haven't researched every single one.

And in any case, you haven't met my earlier criteria for debate. Until you can really internalize the rebuttals to your argument, your words are depressingly lopsided. As it is, "Nothing else, there's one explanation" is not the kind of critical imagination one needs to thoroughly address one's critics.

Originally posted by Digi
your words are depressingly lopsided.

Why do you care if I'm not debating properly? That should help you argue against my theory. But you don't even seem to want to.

We are selling out America's wealth to other countries by outsourcing our technology and suppressing American R&D programs. That only benefits the upper class, whose wealth are not bound by the economic success of one nation. Why hasn't the overall global economy, which is providing for fewer and fewer people at the top of the pyramid, been opposed by politicians who see a system that is not progressing like it should be, creating international disparity for the majority to fuel capitalism?

Your argument with the way I'm doing this is that I'm not providing counterarguments to my one explanation, the the upper is organized enough to cheat the system, yet you're not picking the lopsided argument apart with said "other possibilities".

Of course they'd be more wealthy in a better economy, but the difference between the 1% and the 99% would not be as steep. That means less control, that means less power. Do you really think overall wealth, resources and technological/societal improvement means as much to them as does control? We were headed towards a global, techno-progressive, nation. In such a nation, the scarcity that powers those at the top goes away. The upper-class-supporting way of business is now creating scarcity in order to thrive.

I understand you want me do a proper English 101 Paper with an anti-thesis, I don't really find it necessary on a message board, but right now I've botched that, I'll admit.

Originally posted by Oneness
Why do you care if I'm not debating properly? That should help you argue against my theory. But you don't even seem to want to.

The alternative is far worse.

http://whatwouldjackdo.net/fb4d3ca1c0efd24.jpg

Using an opponent's argument to deepen your conviction and take it further and further into the personal realm instead of debating fairly using the same method and standards is always a bad idea. It's not impossible for people to be wrong; but for some people it's impossible to admit they're potentially wrong.

This is where you assume that I am attacking you/your argument and attack me in turn, even though I haven't closely followed your argument and I only interjected because the comment I quoted struck me as incredibly naive.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Using an opponent's argument to deepen your conviction and take it further and further into the personal realm instead of debating fairly using the same method and standards is always a bad idea.

Why is that?

You do recall in the versus forum that I've conceded several times and that has increased my knowledge of tiers.



I admit I'm potentially wrong right now.



You're claiming my method of argument is erroneous and pointless. I'm not solely trying reaffirm my belief by disproving other's anti-theses as they come - that's illogical - I'm either trying to gain a corrected perspective or reaffirm my current perspective on the situation of global control.

In a way, I conceded on the reproduction of digits like 666 and 42 million posing no real meaning or argument (though I never believed they did). I put them them there to draw attention to my inner argument. Though the Onion thing was an oops.

Originally posted by Oneness
Why is that?

You do recall in the versus forum that I've conceded several times and that has increased my knowledge of tiers.

Erm, how is it not obvious? Reread what I wrote:

Using an opponent's argument to deepen your conviction and take it further and further into the personal realm instead of debating fairly using the same method and standards is always a bad idea.

It's one thing to have a stance and advocate it; it's another to let that stance become personal, and the debate devolves into a pissing contest. This was in direct reply to what you said here:



If you're in a forum where the norm is to debate, and intelligent conversation is something well above what is norm for Youtube comments or Facebook rants, it is expected that participants know how to debate. Otherwise, why would anyone want to believe in them?

You seem to be asserting that debating using fallacies or haphazardly is somehow a virtue. It's not.



Fair enough.



Again, no. Here you are, applying a personal stake in whatever it is you're saying. Let's re-examine it:



I color coded this for convenience. Red is the accused subject, whereas orange is the personal ownership of a publicly espoused idea, and blue is a strawman conclusion that I never said above.

HRM. WONDER WHY THIS RESPONSE FROM YOU COULD BE BOTH PREDICTED AND AMUSING.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

This is where you assume that I am attacking you/your argument and attack me in turn, even though I haven't closely followed your argument and I only interjected because the comment I quoted struck me as incredibly naive.

OH RIGHT. I ALREADY PREDICTED IT AND TOLD YOU AS SUCH. YOU HOWEVER BEAT EXPECTATIONS BY MERELY ASSUMING THAT I ATTACKED YOU AND NOT ATTACKING IN TURN. WELL DONE.

Again, my post is in direct response to you flippantly responding to Digi's earnest request for you to debate properly, as he asked multiple times. He is within his rights to call you out if you are missing the point, debating unfairly, or debating poorly. If you take this criticism as personal insult instead of constructive, then expect to have a bad time in life. The world isn't going to censor itself to spare your feelings.



What is your inner argument? I've read through your posts, and it seems you're using numerology to prove some kind of class-oriented conspiracy theory. Pass the pipe.

@Stealth Moose, nice post. You did that without personally attacking Oneness, not even once.

@Oneness, your ideas are being challenged, not you personally. You need to examine your ideas to make them better, and a challenge is the best way to improve. Do not just dismiss, but think it through...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@Stealth Moose, nice post. You did that without personally attacking Oneness, not even once.

@Oneness, your ideas are being challenged, not you personally. You need to examine your ideas to make them better, and a challenge is the best way to improve. Do not just dismiss, but think it through...

It might help if I had a big hammy avatar so people interpreted my words as coming from it. Like this:

http://www.skepticnorth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skepticism.jpg

I'm sorry, but is your main point not that my argumentative style is fallacious/improper? "Beneath forum standards", you compared it to facebook and youtube comments IIRC. I'm correctly asserting that you're attacking my method of my underlying argument, not the argument itself - which you claim to not understand, and which I restated repeatedly.

The argument is that there is some underlying cohesion within the upper class that has control of the governments and their information through bribery, to answer your inquiry on the matter.

As per Digi's disapproval, what I got was that my method is fine until I leave out pedantic elements like an anti-thesis. As for the OP of the Atheist thread, he made the same mistake. I think I'm being treated unfairly here.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm sorry, but is your main point not that my argumentative style is fallacious/improper? "Beneath forum standards", you compared it to facebook and youtube comments IIRC. I'm correctly asserting that you're attacking my method of argument, not the argument itself - which you have not read and which I restated repeatedly.

The argument is that there is some underlying cohesion within the upper class that has control of the governments and their information through bribery, to answer you question.

As per Digi's disapproval, my method is fine until I leave out pedantic elements like an anti-thesis. As for the OP of the Atheist thread, he made the same mistake. I think I'm being treated unfairly here.

No, your idea is being challenged, not your method. The quality of your method is linked to your idea, and by pointing out your faulty method, your idea is placed in question.

To be honest, I like your method. It makes it easier to demolish your ideas.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The quality of your method is linked to your idea, and by pointing out your faulty method, your idea is placed in question.

If you're referring to the reproduction of numbers to implicate biblical meaning, I've moved passed that - and stated it is not apart of my argument, so, ipso facto, it cannot be linked to it.

In the OP my argument was not dependent on this (I do believe Digi used the term) "overarching argument", yet he hasn't acknowledged it for what it was - conceded to the debunkers. It is superfluous, so I attempted to restate my overreached argument at the beckoning of Digi.

Now we're getting into it being beneath forum standards because it lacks an anti-thesis, but I rarely see anti-theses supplemented to the arguments on these boards.

Originally posted by Oneness
If you're referring to the reproduction of numbers to implicate biblical meaning, I've moved passed that - and stated it is not apart of my argument, so it cannot be linked to it.

In the OP my argument was not dependent on this (I do believe Digi used the term) "overarching argument", yet he hasn't acknowledged it for what it was - conceding to the debunkers.

What I was telling you applies to the overall, and can be useful for any debate.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the argument at hand. Instead, it was a general concept.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I was telling you applies to the overall, and can be useful for any debate.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the argument at hand. Instead, it was a general concept. And to that, I agree.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm sorry, but is your main point not that my argumentative style is fallacious/improper?

I pointed out that debating incorrectly is fallacious/improper. Again, in direct response to your words to Digi.



"IIRC"? You realize that you can scroll up or open the thread in another tab to read and confirm stuff before you reply, right?

In any case, not seeing the virtue of debating fairly and properly in a discussion forum is pretty mind-boggling. Should discussion just be full of people passionately reasserting their viewpoints until they reach an agreement magically somehow?

What alternative to proper debating would you suggest?



More like I didn't care to research myself and counter directly. Your argument already seems pretty thin, and we've had this discussion over Ockham's Razor before but you never took it to heart. I explicitly told you that I was taking exception to the idea that debating is unimportant to the topic at hand (or any topic here that doesn't fall into Off-Topic Sub-Forum).

Again, what's a viable alternative to fair debating policy?



This is bordering on self-evident. This thread, in the form of your OP, asserted that numerology was able to make this even more evident, or that it had some hidden truth that illuminated us where common sense and watching something other than Fox News at night already indicated.

You backtracked over numerology, as you have backtracked over stuff before when you get called out on it, and now you're attacking the idea of debating fairly because you can't answer to the challenges presented to you.

Again, what is your viable alternative to non-fallacy-ridden debating standards?



Really? Every time I read his posts, all I can think of is he's pointing out to you that this is all "a stretch" and challenging you to think clearly. The issue here isn't the conclusion that elites control, etc.; it's that you've introduced numerology here as some kind of truth-finder, and you can't defend the claim.



I'm not sure what you mean. You came out of left field and stated the following gems:

Originally posted by Oneness
He uses many terms specific to argumentation. Just because someone is a poor debater, or looses his cool in a debate (me) does not mean he's wrong. Expertise on a subject is more relevant.

Originally posted by Oneness
If one's only area of expertise is the subject of debate, than he'll never win an argument that isn't about debating.

You singled me out specifically because I am, I suppose, a debating elitist, and you hate elitists. I'm asking you again: what's your viable alternative? Intellectual ignorance in the form of proper critical thinking and debate? Protest Logic and Reasoning 101? Next time someone makes an axiomatic statement, refute it out of hand? At what point do you stop and realize that working against rational debate is a bad thing?

Originally posted by Oneness
And to that, I agree.

How can you agree with what I just said?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
and we've had this discussion over Ockham's Razor before but you never took it to heart. I explicitly told you that I was taking exception to the idea that debating is unimportant to the topic at hand (or any topic here that doesn't fall into Off-Topic Sub-Forum).

This is bordering on self-evident. This thread, in the form of your OP, asserted that numerology was able to make this even more evident, or that it had some hidden truth that illuminated us where common sense and watching something other than Fox News at night already indicated.

You backtracked over numerology, as you have backtracked over stuff before when you get called out on it, and now you're attacking the idea of debating fairly because you can't answer to the challenges presented to you.

Really? Every time I read his posts, all I can think of is he's pointing out to you that this is all "a stretch" and challenging you to think clearly. The issue here isn't the conclusion that elites control, etc.; it's that you've introduced numerology here as some kind of truth-finder, and you can't defend the claim.

I believe that's called a concession. I cannot prove the metaphysics of numerology, as it were, when the burden of proof is on me. Therefore, it's a concession to a fallacy which I suppose I must have failed to admit when called out on it. But I did say my overlooked argument was not dependent on it.

I'd hoped my superfluous arguments would not get this kind of attention because it was obviously irrational. The thread was getting out of hand because of the focus on it, then when Digi was telling me to concentrate on real, arguable points I was pleased. Then I was called out on the opening slip up to my response as opposed to the body of it. Then I made another mistake with my reply about not debating properly, I wouldn't have said that if he'd argued on the matter I'm actually genuinely interested in.

Originally posted by Oneness
The key to taking down the top 1% is information overload. Singularity level complexity within the monetary system would be untenable, even for the 1%. It's not chaos when something inhuman is running it, this thing is not concerned with ruling resources, just managing to the extent of sufficiency - something the human population would throw off. Humans are incapable of sufficiency, as Carl Sagan said, it will be our descendants who are not us, but a species very like us, with more of our strengths, and fewer of our weaknesses.

If you take down the top of our socio economic demographic pyramid, the one that looks quite nice at the moment, what % do you see the new number being at the new top?

3 or 4 % perhaps?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you take down the top of our socio economic demographic pyramid, the one that looks quite nice at the moment, what % do you see the new number being at the new top?

3 or 4 % perhaps?

Regards
DL

If Moore's Law proves correct and continuous, than hypothetically, if we're talking about a Type I Civilization (one that can harness 100% of the energy within the earth) with self-sufficient autonomous industry, nano-assembled products almost materializing from pure air via molecular reassembling, run by a bunch of transhumans (David 8; Data; shapeshifters), and nanoproccessing hyper-computers you're looking at 1% of the population having access to 1% of its resources from top to bottom. In other words, everyone can get what they want - and they want only the means to improve technological capacity and scientific understanding (self-actualization).

We either change, or

Originally posted by Oneness
It is factual that humans have reached a point of stagnation, and that there's no reason for economic turmoil in the modern world, except for the system being flawed and untenable.

There shouldn't be a reason for economic turmoil because, as empirically demonstrated in the Global Village Construction Set Experiment (this was a peer reviewed experiment, btw), modern civilization has already gained the sufficient productive resources to fulfill all basic human needs, even accounting for a growing population.......

Yet we've been unable to realize a post-scarcity system due to the supposed "realistic group conflict theory", that was demonstrated in the Robbers Cave Experiment.

So our system cannot move past scarcity because it was created by scarcity, basically.

Our system creates enough scarcity to fall to pieces in the attempt to remain stagnant. Humans physiologically cannot re-engineer the system at this point. If we exposed this organization (and somehow used the cognitive surplus to organize and successfully put up a coop) and their crimes, we've imprisoned, or killed via capitol punishment, a good portion of our population and will have maintained the only system we can manage without giving executive responsibility to a hypothetical Strong AI.

Originally posted by Oneness
If we're talking about a Type I Civilization (one that can harness 100% of the energy within the earth) with self-sufficient autonomous industry, nano-assembled products almost materializing from pure air via molecular reassembling, run by a bunch of transhumans (David 8; Data; shapeshifters), and nanoproccessing hyper-computers you're looking at 1% of the population having access to 1% of its resources from top to bottom. In other words, everyone can get what they want - and they want only the means to improve technological capacity and scientific understanding (self-actualization).

Eh. No. I was not talking about an imaginary type 1 civilization.

Nano assembly. Ya ya

Regards
DL

Option a, where we use our cognitive surplus (the global population's accumulative free-time) to organize and expose said organization, we basically release the nukes from their hibernation. In which case this same system might emerge withing centuries or millenniums. That's well and good, we can repeat that until the sun goes pop.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Eh. No. I was not talking about an imaginary type 1 civilization.

Nano assembly. Ya ya

Regards
DL

If things were different at the top, and capitalism had not imposed in the 70s, our economy would have boosted the globe, and yes the 1% would not have nearly as much of a gap between the middle class.

Originally posted by Oneness
Option a, where we use our cognitive surplus (the global population's accumulative free-time) to organize and expose said organization, we basically release the nukes from their hibernation. In which case this same system might emerge withing centuries or millenniums. That's well and good, we can repeat that until the sun goes pop.



If things were different at the top, and capitalism had not imposed in the 70s, our economy would have boosted the globe, and yes the 1% would not have nearly as much of a gap between the middle class.

When you put a number to my first question, then we can chat at the same level.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
When you put a number to my first question, then we can chat at the same level.

Regards
DL I'm not a statistical analyst, I do not have the know-how or the data to produce a percentage. That doesn't put you above me, unless you're a statistician and can get the percentage. That requires years of education lol.

The exact number is not really relevant, inequality would be lower just by implementing what we (in the U.S.) would have erroneously deemed in our paranoia as "communistic" business policies.

I understand now, I do not have all the facts. I'm going to take a break from debating on serious topics for a good long while.

Originally posted by Oneness
I understand now, I do not have all the facts. I'm going to take a break from debating on serious topics for a good long while.

May I make a suggestion. Only debate what you know, and don't take anything personally.