I don't believe this secret cartel exists, nothing in my reading has ever produced any hard proof that it does. It would therefore go without saying that of course I've never met any 'players' involved.
Then if you don't believe the secret cartel exists then why not provide your proof that it doesn't? You haven't given us any basis to believe your opinion has more weight than those holding contrary ones.
how could I if the secret cabal doesn't exist?
How do you know it doesn't exist? Proof please!
What facts? Why can you find them and I cannot?
You can find them and history is replete with many examples such as the Petro dollar
You are assuming a lot of things here that don't make sense.
Am I? What specifically is that?
You have assumed that my opinion is based on wealth of evidence that proves this kinds of cartel doesn't exist. When my current belief, after some study, was actually formed in the absence any corroborating evidence that such a cartel exists - and I mean hard proof, not second hand youtube videos.
So where is your hard proof that the cabal doesn't exist? If your argument is to come right out to state that is is bunk, then please provide evidence to support your argument!
So when you say: "You didn't provide sources or proof that your assertions are the truth or as being fact." - that doesn't make sense, the burden of proof is YOURS not MINE. How can I prove something doesn't exist?
Really? Seriously that is the position of your argument? Typical pivot point deflect from answering the question. First of all you are the one making claims not me about the Petro Dollar not existing so if anything the burden of proof should be on you. Again how do you know that it doesn't exist? Proof please!
and for all your talk you haven't shown what assumptions of mine are inaccurate or untruthful. It's not a hard thing to do, put your fingers to the keyboard and explain what I have got wrong.
Ok I will indulge you!
1.The petrodollar stuff is bunk, its bunk for the reasons I outlined.
The reasons you outline is not proof that the petro dollar doesn't exist, it's just a stated opinion as to why you believe as such, but does not in succinct terms prove you are right. The fact is historical events supports more that it does exist than it doesn't. Particularly as it relates to US and Britain's intervention with Iran, and the Saudi Arabia relationship, Standard OIL, the interventionist wars of regime change in South America, middle east etc, etc. Do I really need to list this for you, or are you going to refute historical facts too?
The gold doesn't matter,
2. Again where is your proof. Gold through out human history has had an intrinsic value as it related to commerce and the exchange of goods and labor. In fact up until Nixon, and the Brent Wood Conference a lot of currencies used Gold to back it's value, before fiat and fractional lending concept was introduced.
3.Is Gaddafi a good guy? No is the short answer. The long answer is this is a guy who died the richest man on the planet by raping his country and his people of wealth which he had no right to. Great he provided some free water, really GOOD FOR HIM, but he still wouldn't allow his people free and fair elections and to decide on a government of their choice. He still wouldn't allow the people the spend the money they received from the oil as they see fit, no Gaddafi had to decide that for them. He cared for them so much that only he could be in power, only he could control that wealth
Fact 1. Libya was the most prosperous Democratic nation in all of Africa.
Fact 2. Libya was recognized by the UN for Human Rights Achievements and it's Democratic Government model
Fact 3. Libya's Oil Revenues went directly to the people in separate established accounts.
Fact 4. Libya had a democratic Government system in place.
Case in point Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic, and economic policy themselves.
Democracy is not merely about holding elections simply to choose which particular representatives of the elite class should rule over the masses. True democracy is about democratizing the economy and giving economic power to the majority.
Fact is, the west has shown that unfettered free markets and genuinely free elections simply cannot co-exist. Organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. How can capitalism and democracy co-exist if one concentrates wealth and power in the hands of few, and the other seeks to spread power and wealth among many? Mr. Gaddafis Jamahiriya however, sought to spread economic power amongst the downtrodden many rather than just the privileged few.
Fact 5. Under their human rights achievements Women in particular enjoyed the same freedoms that Western cultures advocated. Free to educate and elevate themselves. Freedom to drive, hold elected office, etc.
Fact 6. Libya had the highest literacy rate in all of Africa and and were on the same levels of most western countries when it came to testing standards.
Yeah if Gaddafi was this monstrous dictator that your hegemony diatribe inaccurately portrays, then how is it possible that Libya achieved a successful democratic society? This is where I used the term social stratification to describe your views and the belief of your views based on your own perceptions of social order that forms those views.
He still wouldn't allow the people the spend the money they received from the oil as they see fit, no Gaddafi had to decide that for them. He cared for them so much that only he could be in power, only he could control that wealth
For the reasons I just stated above is proof your assertions are flat out wrong. Have you asked a Libyan who lived during Gaddaffi's era in what they thought of him?
I don't know a huge amount about Assad or Syria other than it is very complication. I suspect you don't know much either.
Again making assumptions in what my experiences are or what I know. Buy you can't acknowledge that someone else may know more or is subject matter expert when it comes to middle east policies? You don't know anything about me, so what are your assumptions based on?
As for the video - it opens with Russia Today. Need I say more?
Right.
The fact you use words such as Commie to describe anything related to Russia, or China is indicative of your hegemonist views. This was explained to you, and my point was the You Tube videos, or for that matter RT that you so adamantly refute as being credible is withstanding of the original premise I was challenging you on. The fact that such sources would go on to propagate such views are no more invalidated then the sources you rely on for news and other sources to support your viewpoints. What are your sources that you consider reputable? Why not provide them for everyone here to see? I am sure you won't abdicate in providing them here for fear of exposing your flawed argument.
The West is not perfect, we get PLENTY wrong. But the West is also not the bad guy in the manner than those videos portray.
Oh well that is a matter of opinion. I can think of plenty of examples that the west is very bad, I only need to look at my ancestors and the atrocities committed on them to know that I don't hold the same reverence as you do of the west.
"It seems your opinions and the way you have arrived at shaping your views on certain subject matters, is caught between moral relativism and the post modernist paradigm in which such tools are used." - sorry, but you are actually talking rubbish now. Lets talk facts, where are yours?
So when you don't understand something just dismiss it outright as talking rubbish? Now who is practicing intellectual dishonesty? My statement makes perfect sense and if you actually know anything about these terms in the context of cultural and popular cultural studies then you would not resort to such defense mechanism because doing so would not reinforce your own moral intellectual superiority over everybody else's views in this thread.
"Is it below you to accept or acknowledge that some of your assertions could be wrong? Or the possibility of them? Or are you set in your ways that no matter what views are presented to you as being contrary will be outright dismissed because doing so would shatter you own beliefs as it relates to your constructed realities reinforced by such social stratifications?" - you are talking more rubbish 'social stratifications' wtf are you talking about lmao.
Again dismissing my statement as being rubbish and ignoring altogether answering my questions only exposes your ignorance. Its called culture! Try reading a little about it's theories before outright dismissing something that you obviously have no understanding of.
of course I can change my opinion, haven't you been reading my posts? I have said several times I used to believe in this cabal but I changed my mind. I've changed my mind on this issue before, and can change my mind again, one of us is certainly capable of changing their opinion.
I have been reading your posts, and your reactions to others on certain topics is that you are often limited in your scope, with stilted opinions, un-malleable to others points of views, asserting yours are the only ones acceptable, or being true but you haven't supported your arguments with any kind of proof. Yet you demand others to do it? Seems like a double standard you like to practice often. So please provide us with your proof on why you think the Petro dollar doesn't exist, or that Gaddafi was as you characterize him being this ruthless dictator? Talk facts? Yes practice what your preach!
"Now in the bigger picture if you were to asked me to prove this for you in more concrete terms, I will admit that I can not do so simply by articulating it on this forum" - case closed then, since you have admitted you cannot prove it? What you have just admitted is that in the absence of evidence you believe in a secret cabal. Fine but I think that is illogical, its illogical because in the absence of 'concrete' evidence the logical position would be that the cabal doesn't exist.
That is not what I said and I would suggest taking a deep breath absent of your narrow mindedness and judgmental conclusions and reread my statement. I did not say I couldn't prove it, but I couldn't do so on this forum. Hence the fact I gave you an open invitation to meet in person over a cup of coffee. Did you conveniently leave that detail out for the sake of purposely being obtuse?
Judging from your responses so far, it seems you have a hard time at keeping things in context, but instead choose to cherry pick my statements to only reaffirm your positions and Arguments. Case in point, while on second thought I much would have used Jen's Aliens analogy than God to phrase my last question, but that as it may I did it anyway. The question was purposely planted to gauge what your response would be in a further analysis. The question was quite simple, in fact a simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. That fact you had to answer it on the premise of having empirical evidence only proves my point, and is telling in many ways in how you go on to construct your arguments, which is one sided. Meaning your views are more validated while invalidating others is a common trait existing in most of your interactions with almost everyone here. I am just making an observation, if you choose to invalidate them or call me rubbish, or label the conversation as being ridiculous then that is fine, but doing so only does a disservice to yourself it does little to elevate your overall narrative to being substantive, as opposed to lets say for the sake of winning the argument, because that is hardly the point.
Then if you don't believe the secret cartel exists then why not provide your proof that it doesn't? You haven't given us any basis to believe your opinion has more weight than those holding contrary ones.
how could I if the secret cabal doesn't exist?
How do you know it doesn't exist? Proof please!
What facts? Why can you find them and I cannot?
You can find them and history is replete with many examples such as the Petro dollar
You are assuming a lot of things here that don't make sense.
Am I? What specifically is that?
You have assumed that my opinion is based on wealth of evidence that proves this kinds of cartel doesn't exist. When my current belief, after some study, was actually formed in the absence any corroborating evidence that such a cartel exists - and I mean hard proof, not second hand youtube videos.
So where is your hard proof that the cabal doesn't exist? If your argument is to come right out to state that is is bunk, then please provide evidence to support your argument!
So when you say: "You didn't provide sources or proof that your assertions are the truth or as being fact." - that doesn't make sense, the burden of proof is YOURS not MINE. How can I prove something doesn't exist?
Really? Seriously that is the position of your argument? Typical pivot point deflect from answering the question. First of all you are the one making claims not me about the Petro Dollar not existing so if anything the burden of proof should be on you. Again how do you know that it doesn't exist? Proof please!
and for all your talk you haven't shown what assumptions of mine are inaccurate or untruthful. It's not a hard thing to do, put your fingers to the keyboard and explain what I have got wrong.
Ok I will indulge you!
1.The petrodollar stuff is bunk, its bunk for the reasons I outlined.
The reasons you outline is not proof that the petro dollar doesn't exist, it's just a stated opinion as to why you believe as such, but does not in succinct terms prove you are right. The fact is historical events supports more that it does exist than it doesn't. Particularly as it relates to US and Britain's intervention with Iran, and the Saudi Arabia relationship, Standard OIL, the interventionist wars of regime change in South America, middle east etc, etc. Do I really need to list this for you, or are you going to refute historical facts too?
The gold doesn't matter,
2. Again where is your proof. Gold through out human history has had an intrinsic value as it related to commerce and the exchange of goods and labor. In fact up until Nixon, and the Brent Wood Conference a lot of currencies used Gold to back it's value, before fiat and fractional lending concept was introduced.
3.Is Gaddafi a good guy? No is the short answer. The long answer is this is a guy who died the richest man on the planet by raping his country and his people of wealth which he had no right to. Great he provided some free water, really GOOD FOR HIM, but he still wouldn't allow his people free and fair elections and to decide on a government of their choice. He still wouldn't allow the people the spend the money they received from the oil as they see fit, no Gaddafi had to decide that for them. He cared for them so much that only he could be in power, only he could control that wealth
Fact 1. Libya was the most prosperous Democratic nation in all of Africa.
Fact 2. Libya was recognized by the UN for Human Rights Achievements and it's Democratic Government model
Fact 3. Libya's Oil Revenues went directly to the people in separate established accounts.
Fact 4. Libya had a democratic Government system in place.
Case in point Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic, and economic policy themselves.
Democracy is not merely about holding elections simply to choose which particular representatives of the elite class should rule over the masses. True democracy is about democratizing the economy and giving economic power to the majority.
Fact is, the west has shown that unfettered free markets and genuinely free elections simply cannot co-exist. Organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. How can capitalism and democracy co-exist if one concentrates wealth and power in the hands of few, and the other seeks to spread power and wealth among many? Mr. Gaddafis Jamahiriya however, sought to spread economic power amongst the downtrodden many rather than just the privileged few.
Fact 5. Under their human rights achievements Women in particular enjoyed the same freedoms that Western cultures advocated. Free to educate and elevate themselves. Freedom to drive, hold elected office, etc.
Fact 6. Libya had the highest literacy rate in all of Africa and and were on the same levels of most western countries when it came to testing standards.
Yeah if Gaddafi was this monstrous dictator that your hegemony diatribe inaccurately portrays, then how is it possible that Libya achieved a successful democratic society? This is where I used the term social stratification to describe your views and the belief of your views based on your own perceptions of social order that forms those views.
He still wouldn't allow the people the spend the money they received from the oil as they see fit, no Gaddafi had to decide that for them. He cared for them so much that only he could be in power, only he could control that wealth
For the reasons I just stated above is proof your assertions are flat out wrong. Have you asked a Libyan who lived during Gaddaffi's era in what they thought of him?
I don't know a huge amount about Assad or Syria other than it is very complication. I suspect you don't know much either.
Again making assumptions in what my experiences are or what I know. Buy you can't acknowledge that someone else may know more or is subject matter expert when it comes to middle east policies? You don't know anything about me, so what are your assumptions based on?
As for the video - it opens with Russia Today. Need I say more?
Right.
The fact you use words such as Commie to describe anything related to Russia, or China is indicative of your hegemonist views. This was explained to you, and my point was the You Tube videos, or for that matter RT that you so adamantly refute as being credible is withstanding of the original premise I was challenging you on. The fact that such sources would go on to propagate such views are no more invalidated then the sources you rely on for news and other sources to support your viewpoints. What are your sources that you consider reputable? Why not provide them for everyone here to see? I am sure you won't abdicate in providing them here for fear of exposing your flawed argument.
The West is not perfect, we get PLENTY wrong. But the West is also not the bad guy in the manner than those videos portray.
Oh well that is a matter of opinion. I can think of plenty of examples that the west is very bad, I only need to look at my ancestors and the atrocities committed on them to know that I don't hold the same reverence as you do of the west.
"It seems your opinions and the way you have arrived at shaping your views on certain subject matters, is caught between moral relativism and the post modernist paradigm in which such tools are used." - sorry, but you are actually talking rubbish now. Lets talk facts, where are yours?
So when you don't understand something just dismiss it outright as talking rubbish? Now who is practicing intellectual dishonesty? My statement makes perfect sense and if you actually know anything about these terms in the context of cultural and popular cultural studies then you would not resort to such defense mechanism because doing so would not reinforce your own moral intellectual superiority over everybody else's views in this thread.
"Is it below you to accept or acknowledge that some of your assertions could be wrong? Or the possibility of them? Or are you set in your ways that no matter what views are presented to you as being contrary will be outright dismissed because doing so would shatter you own beliefs as it relates to your constructed realities reinforced by such social stratifications?" - you are talking more rubbish 'social stratifications' wtf are you talking about lmao.
Again dismissing my statement as being rubbish and ignoring altogether answering my questions only exposes your ignorance. Its called culture! Try reading a little about it's theories before outright dismissing something that you obviously have no understanding of.
of course I can change my opinion, haven't you been reading my posts? I have said several times I used to believe in this cabal but I changed my mind. I've changed my mind on this issue before, and can change my mind again, one of us is certainly capable of changing their opinion.
I have been reading your posts, and your reactions to others on certain topics is that you are often limited in your scope, with stilted opinions, un-malleable to others points of views, asserting yours are the only ones acceptable, or being true but you haven't supported your arguments with any kind of proof. Yet you demand others to do it? Seems like a double standard you like to practice often. So please provide us with your proof on why you think the Petro dollar doesn't exist, or that Gaddafi was as you characterize him being this ruthless dictator? Talk facts? Yes practice what your preach!
"Now in the bigger picture if you were to asked me to prove this for you in more concrete terms, I will admit that I can not do so simply by articulating it on this forum" - case closed then, since you have admitted you cannot prove it? What you have just admitted is that in the absence of evidence you believe in a secret cabal. Fine but I think that is illogical, its illogical because in the absence of 'concrete' evidence the logical position would be that the cabal doesn't exist.
That is not what I said and I would suggest taking a deep breath absent of your narrow mindedness and judgmental conclusions and reread my statement. I did not say I couldn't prove it, but I couldn't do so on this forum. Hence the fact I gave you an open invitation to meet in person over a cup of coffee. Did you conveniently leave that detail out for the sake of purposely being obtuse?
Judging from your responses so far, it seems you have a hard time at keeping things in context, but instead choose to cherry pick my statements to only reaffirm your positions and Arguments. Case in point, while on second thought I much would have used Jen's Aliens analogy than God to phrase my last question, but that as it may I did it anyway. The question was purposely planted to gauge what your response would be in a further analysis. The question was quite simple, in fact a simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. That fact you had to answer it on the premise of having empirical evidence only proves my point, and is telling in many ways in how you go on to construct your arguments, which is one sided. Meaning your views are more validated while invalidating others is a common trait existing in most of your interactions with almost everyone here. I am just making an observation, if you choose to invalidate them or call me rubbish, or label the conversation as being ridiculous then that is fine, but doing so only does a disservice to yourself it does little to elevate your overall narrative to being substantive, as opposed to lets say for the sake of winning the argument, because that is hardly the point.
1
Go, Le Pen! Come on France, we need you to pull this off!
