Who’s there?
The Illuminati!
The Illumin… ? No, I don’t believe you. There are too many more reasonable explanations for that knock.
I’m knocking from the inside of your house…
Are you saying that, for instance, Christopher Loeak, the president of the Marshall Islands, is equally powerful as Obama, or David Cameron, or Hu Jintao?
I think he’s saying they are all equally powerful in the sense that the Head of the Illuminati is above them all and tells them all what to do.
(I may be wrong, my brain faded out for a while around post 400…)
Land Shark!
CAPT
Given the hilarity of this thread, now when Kozmik says ‘National Goal’, I can’t help but think of the St. Louis Arch as some kind of giant soccer goal.
The head of the single superpower would be the first among equals.
That’d be a National GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLL!!!
But still not on the same level as the pretzel or sushi kings.
What about when two heads of government realize they can cooperate and kill or drive away a third head of government?
It just doesn’t make sense that you think someone needs to be pulling the strings for two (or more) countries to go to war. All I can compare it to is the ludicrous comic book convention of having all the street crime in a city (including muggings, thefts of car radios, etc.) being controlled by a one evil genius in a clown costume. You don’t need a conspiracy to explain the existence of muggings; you don’t need an Illuminati to explain the existence of war.
What about it? I’m not following what you are implying here.
I had said that wars have been going on forever; I may not have clearly stated that modern international conflicts are only quantitatively different than neighbourly disputes. They involve more people and cause more damage, but are caused by the same emotions, fears and arrogance.
It is a difference of scale, not of kind. Are you implying something else? If so, explain it to me as if I were a child.
I’m going to explain it to you as if you were a very smart child. So I assume you understand the concept of via negativa.
It is much easier to answer who the Illuminati are not, via negativa. The Illuminati is not Queen Elizabeth II. The Illuminati is not the Jews. The Illuminati is not Pope Benedict XIV.
I’m Spartacus!
No, sorry. I’m still not getting it.
I am certain that your Illuminati are also not Alvin and the Chipmunks, the mayor of Chicago, or the guy who sets out beach chairs at Playa Carmine on Cozumel. But I was not asking who the Illumianti are (or are not). I was asking what you were saying about heads of governments cooperating against a third head of government.
You seem to have been cryptic, hoping I would be able to infer your meaning, and I was asking for some enlightenment.
You made the point in a previous post that wars have been happening since the first time two neighbours realized they can cooperate and kill or drive away a third neighbour. I assume you are referring to civil wars, battles, and the like. I’m talking about wars and similar events that are conducted at what is believed to be the highest level, between heads of government.
So you won’t accuse me of being cryptic, I’m alluding to something that is is the news.
[QUOTE=The New York Times, July 19, 2012]
Mr. Obama called President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Wednesday and urged him again to allow Mr. Assad to be pushed from power.
[/QUOTE]
?
As in personal interactions between individuals in power?
I believe that is more commonly referred to as “diplomacy” than war, unless the politicians start punching each other.
That’s why he asked you to explain who they are.