I pit the derisive, condenscending, anti-conspiriacy ... [merged threads]

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Of the 192 heads of government and of the people that they, supposedly, represent. Of democracy. Of legitimacy itself.

But, not all the governments of the world are democracies, even. Are you referring to the People under all of the 192 *hic* nation's wildly varying laws? And "legitimate legitimacy" is just tautological nonsense. I just don't understand what you're trying to say here, between your fuzzy philosophical propositions or any evidence or actual point you're trying to draw from reality.

Legitimacy in and of itself, will embue an individual with absolute power, how exactly?

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

It is a philosophical concept; however, it is not meant as a metaphor or a parable.

I mean that what I describe is the ultimate representation of the political system, the G-192 summit. That a meeting where the only people in attendance are the 192 heads of government (and one Illuminatus) is the highest level of politics. That there is no higher authority than those 192 people.

Yes.

Okay.
Does your Illuminatus have a corporeal existence, or is he a representation of power above political considerations?

[Loach]

There are 204 nations competing in the Olympics. So what does that mean for our drinking game?

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Loach

There are 204 nations competing in the Olympics. So what does that mean for our drinking game?

Plus those independent athletes - I bet they're up to something.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Munch

Plus those independent athletes

Is anyone in this world truly independent?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Once those people understand my argument, they can either agree with it or disagree with it, and, hopefully, explain why they agree with it or disagree with it.

You'd need a coherent argument. So far, most of your posts have been [obvious fact] + [obvious fact] = [unicorns are real!]. When this is called to your attention, your response is usually "but it could happen!" If this thread lasts 50 more pages, it'll probably be 50 more pages of that. This is not the best way to get people to understand your beliefs.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by cmyk

Are you referring to the People under all of the 192 *hic* nation's wildly varying laws?

I'm referring to the collective will of the 192 countries. As Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, said, "no one should doubt the collective will of the 17 countries". Mr. Juncker was, of course, referring to the Eurozone. How would it work for the G-192 summit? The collective will of 192 countries?

Originally Posted by cmyk

And "legitimate legitimacy" is just tautological nonsense. I just don't understand what you're trying to say here, between your fuzzy philosophical propositions or any evidence or actual point you're trying to draw from reality.

I am asking the question - What is the legitimacy of legitimacy?

Originally Posted by Marley23

You'd need a coherent argument. So far, most of your posts have been [obvious fact] + [obvious fact] = [unicorns are real!]. When this is called to your attention, your response is usually "but it could happen!" If this thread lasts 50 more pages, it'll probably be 50 more pages of that. This is not the best way to get people to understand your beliefs.

Yes, I need a coherent argument and in order to do that I need to draw from reality (see what cymk wrote). At least now I am only using obvious facts (although I don't think that they are all that obvious). What else do I need for my argument besides facts? Perhaps after cymk answers my questions and I take my time to reply then I will have a coherent argument.


From looking over this post, I wonder - Who would doubt the collective will of the 192 countries? The people? It seems not the people, because the people less the heads of government is the 192 countries (I realize that some people are stateless). The Illuminati? Then the Illuminati would be, as DrFidelius posits, a representation of power above political considerations. I also wonder how a representation of power above poliical considerations relates to the legitimacy of legitimacy.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I'm referring to the collective will of the 192 countries. As Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, said, "no one should doubt the collective will of the 17 countries". Mr. Juncker was, of course, referring to the Eurozone. How would it work for the G-192 summit? The collective will of 192 countries?

I am asking the question - What is the legitimacy of legitimacy?

Yes, I need a coherent argument and in order to do that I need to draw from reality (see what cymk wrote). At least now I am only using obvious facts (although I don't think that they are all that obvious). What else do I need for my argument besides facts? Perhaps after cymk answers my questions and I take my time to reply then I will have a coherent argument.


From looking over this post, I wonder - Who would doubt the collective will of the 192 countries? The people? It seems not the people, because the people less the heads of government is the 192 countries (I realize that some people are stateless). The Illuminati? Then the Illuminati would be, as DrFidelius posits, a representation of power above political considerations. I also wonder how a representation of power above poliical considerations relates to the legitimacy of legitimacy.

I have a small suggestion that might help in our understanding the ideas you are putting forth-instead of using Babelfish to translate your missives from English to Urdu to French to Klingon and back to English, just post it as is.

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I am asking the question - What is the legitimacy of legitimacy?

What is the redness of red? What is the whichness of the why? What is IS?

Dude.

Are you suffering under the impression that that question actually means anything?

[Capt Kirk]

By the way the United Nations has 193 Members

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

CAPT

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Who would doubt the collective will of the 192 countries?

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

By the way the United Nations has 193 Members

Omigod, that's it! The 193d member is...

THE ILLUMINATUS! RUN!!!

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I'm referring to the collective will of the 192 countries.

The collective will of all 192 (drink!) countries points in all sorts of directions. You may notice that a few of them are in armed conflict with each other, and some are in the process of civil war. I think the best you can hope for is "Oxygen is good" but even that is controversial in parts of South America and the Balkans.

[Loach]

Since there are 204 countries in the olympics and 193 in the UN, every time someone says 192 you have to drink 12 shots of beer and 1 shot of Cafe Patron.

[cmyk]

Sorry, Kozmic, I can't answer questions that are nonsensical.

See, Smeghead's post 1109.

What is the wetness of wet?!

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I am asking the question - What is the legitimacy of legitimacy?

In the words of Master Shake from ATHF, 'Why is anything anything?'

[Trinopus]

. . . What is the legitimacy of legitimacy? . . .

Originally Posted by Smeghead

What is the redness of red? . . .

Are you suffering under the impression that that question actually means anything?

There actually could be something in it, in a serious discussion of sovereignty and other poli-sci foundations. Today, we hold "legitimacy" to be a very basic need in a state...but not absolutely universal. There is still room for minority governments, such as Syria's or Iraq's -- so long as they aren't too egregiously brutal, a kind of "assent" legitimacy can stand in place of full and proper "consent" legitimacy.

Then there is still that tiny handful of people who believe in the Divine Right of Kings! Harold Camping (famous for mis-predicting the end of the world) condemned the Arab Spring uprisings, saying that if it was God's Will to send a new ruler to Egypt, God would do so, but that open rebellion against the leadership is open rebellion against God. (!)

But, no, alas, Kozmik is just a yutz.

[Smeghead]

You realize, Trinopus, that you've just become captain of Team Kozmik in his mind. You are his new staunchest defender and ally, and you understand his deepest thoughts.

[Trinopus]

Truth is just truth; you can't have opinions about truth. The redness of my hand. One cannot Grok Spock without heading the mind off at the past. What's zone is zone. My personal Dilbert number is 192.

Fate is for those who have no destiny.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Yes, I need a coherent argument and in order to do that I need to draw from reality (see what cymk wrote). At least now I am only using obvious facts (although I don't think that they are all that obvious). What else do I need for my argument besides facts?

An argument.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Malleus, Incus, Stapes!

An argument.

And facts.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

In the words of Master Shake from ATHF, 'Why is anything anything?'

"Why?"
"Because some things are and some things are not!"
"Why?"
"Because things that are not can't be!"
"Why?"
"Because then nothing wouldn't be! You can't have fuckin' nothing isn't! Everything is!"

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Omigod, that's it! The 193d member is...

THE ILLUMINATUS! RUN!!!

So, the 193rd seat is like the extra place set for Elijah at Passover. It all makes sense. Connect the dots!

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

And facts.

And coherency.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

So, the 193rd seat is like the extra place set for Elijah at Passover. It all makes sense. Connect the dots!

Connect the dots? He can't even color within the lines.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Telemark

The collective will of all 192 (drink!) countries points in all sorts of directions. You may notice that a few of them are in armed conflict with each other, and some are in the process of civil war.

So then what would be the collective will of the G-192? What is the collective will of the UN? What is the collective will of NATO? Of the Eurozone? Of the United States? And, specifically, what would be the collective will, if any, of the G-192 summit?

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Connect the dots? He can't even color within the lines.

I can connect the dots.

G-192 summit
???
Profit!

Marley23 understood what I was getting at in this post. That there is no higher legitimacy than the G-192. That there could only be 192 people at the G-192 summit unless there is the Illuminati. That the G-192 summit would be self-contained unless there is the Illuminati.

Anarchy (international relations)

The Realist theory of international relations asserts that states are the main power players in international politics.

The modified Realist theory of international relations asserts that the G-192 are the main power players in international politics.

[Ravenman]

You can't modify the realist theory of international relations for the G-192, for three reasons:

1) That's not the commonly understood definition of realism;
2) the G-192 does not exist; and
3) people who have a tenuous grasp on the real world don't get to re-write mainstream academic theories.

[DiggitCamara]

So, I've been skimming along this thread and I think Kozmik's thoughts on his theory about world politics generated like this:

1. He was a happy college kid, believing that the U.S. was the most powerful entity in the world (true, but incomplete in my view)
2. This powerful entity answers to the most powerful individual in the world (the President, of course)
3. Suddenly, something happened! (9/11) which was both tragic and a show of power and not controlled by the most powerful individual in the world!
4. Therefore (since, obviously, nothing can happen which the most powerful individual in the world can't control), there have to be individual(s) who are more powerful than this supposedly powerful individual
5. This led to frantic searches on the internets, reassigning of "most powerful" status, assigning of "most truthiness in the world" (NYT, Wikipedia and/or Encyclopedia Brittanica), etc.

Kozmik clearly hadn't had this thought process before 9/11, but probably anything could have triggered this thought process. I believe it's a security blanket, which helps Kozmik to cope with the lack of control we all have (in some degree or other) of our lives.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Marley23 understood what I was getting at in this post.

Since someone else has bumped this post... no, I didn't. Nowhere in that post did I say I had any idea what you were getting at and I gave a bunch of reasons it was impossible and made no sense at all. Unless you mean this part:

Originally Posted by Marley23

Kozmik has been asked about this and issues related to it and keeps dodging the question so he can post more deluded bullshit about it's possible because he's getting secret messages in his Thomas' English Muffins that say it's sooth. Even after 20 pages, Kozmik, I get the sense you're holding back on what you really think. I assume that's because you understand everybody else would think it's crazy. That's why you're arguing about plausibility rather than just stating your opinions on how the the Illuminati caused the world wars and the Civil War, right?

In which case I understood it just fine.

[FinnAgain]

There are two possibilities:
-Kozmik is just trolling us, and all his links to "here this poster supports me" are purposefully wrong. He's just winding us up.
-Kozmik is actually as insane as he seems to be, and has suffered a total disconnect from reality which he has not yet recovered from.

I'm not sure I see the logic in either case for feeding him or allowing him to start these insane threads anymore.

/$.02

[DiggitCamara]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

There are two possibilities:
-Kozmik is just trolling us, and all his links to "here this poster supports me" are purposefully wrong. He's just winding us up.
-Kozmik is actually as insane as he seems to be, and has suffered a total disconnect from reality which he has not yet recovered from.

I'm not sure I see the logic in either case for feeding him or allowing him to start these insane threads anymore.

/$.02

Quite right. Shouldn't have done it.

[theLuckyWalker]

Hello anyone! I was posting on another thread an hour ago and suddenly I received a call on my cell phone (number blocked) from one of the other posters. A threatening phone call. Can anyone tell me how that person was able to get my phone number? I don't even have it in my profile!

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by drlarson

Hello anyone! I was posting on another thread an hour ago and suddenly I received a call on my cell phone (number blocked) from one of the other posters. A threatening phone call. Can anyone tell me how that person was able to get my phone number? I don't even have it in my profile!

That call. . .came from inside your house!!!

[theLuckyWalker]

Originally Posted by kayaker

That call. . .came from inside your house!!!

Hahaha! I see how she got my number now: My email address consisting of my full name is in my profile. From there it's easy.

[Steken]

What does any of that have to do with any of this?

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Steken

What does any of that have to do with any of this?

It's all a massive conspiracy, duh.

[JohnT]

nm...

[JackieLikesVariety]

Originally Posted by drlarson

Hahaha! I see how she got my number now: My email address consisting of my full name is in my profile. From there it's easy.

get OUT!
you mean when you put your information on the internet people can read it?

[elucidator]

Shit, he gets phone calls. I get restraining orders.

[Marley23]

Closed.