Yes, well I would answer in more detail, when this thread has been put in the section:
«
Company and Philosophy»
Admitting that he is already there I take up the cause for Le_Juste_Milieu, because I understand his concerns, and am therefore obliged to admit that one of the files passed before my eyes at one time, concerns this type of movement! (From a distance, I specify ...)
And here I can only note that all your angles of approach are correct (but depend on the angle from which we stand) ...
Here are some tracks (without claiming to know everything - by far - but trying not to see everything in black and trying to be objective)
Certain points should not be confused (which appear here and there, when we investigate ...):
- in general, these lodges are rather wait-and-see (!) I'm talking about those with philosophical / philanthropic aims ... (By nature, the vast majority? I leave the statistics open ...). In short, I would give just one example: Agni Yoga and Helena Roerich (wife of painter Nicholas) and all the theosophical current.
Wait-and-see in the sense that they place their trust in the “good will” of the followers (!) The “noble side of force”;
- some however, among those who are part of it, are rather taxed by others, of being part of the "
dark side», And consider the movement (or at least a part) as satanic (!);
Between these two poles, there must be lots of different sensitivities!
Thus, there are still other variations, some of which are rather part of the first group, and others of the second, and which intervene clearly in the spheres of influence close to power, even in the industrial and economic environment. obviously (!) (you decide which are part of the Illuminati,
"Skull & Bones", or more rare groups like Scientologists, some of which would be related but from afar ... or what do I know ...);
Anyway, in the recent period, it is clear that we have something to be disillusioned about the "positive results" that could emerge and that could suggest a positive direction in all points ... What I 'know some did not lead to that (the expected positive points), but I know so little that the positive side has probably escaped my very modest sagacity (or that it would be much worse, if it did not exist not, who knows ...).
Whether it is in what happened around 9/11, the environmental cause, the financial crisis, the control over power control on the internet, or what do I know ...
We observe these things up to the UN, to the European Parliament or to our cousins across the Atlantic, and also in the countries of the East ...
We do not have - in my opinion - a monolithic whole which would be absolute evil and which would triumph over everything, but many underground forces which clash against a background of conflicts of interest (whether based on philanthropy, economic or not, involving freemasons - or even other secret societies - or not, etc.)
As an example, the (relatively) ambiguous case of José Manuel Barroso:
http://www.alterinfo.net/notes/Les-Etat ... 39243.html
He who was initially at the radical left of the political spectrum as president of the Maoist students (!!!) found himself in the Social Democratic Party (
), go understand ... While this party to gain power found itself in a coalition with the Democratic and Social Center (CDS) and the Monarchist People's Party (PPM), (
),
And finally to fix himself as a parliamentarian at the "center-right" (it seems) Finally, let us note that he sided with the Americans and the British to start the war in Iraq, going so far as to organize a summit in the Azores (Portuguese) of pro-intervention heads of government (George W. Bush, Tony Blair, José Maria Aznar ...
Didn't he himself know where the wind came from?
He would not be on the "dark side" when, however, his positions are sometimes VERY to the right of the right economically speaking! (Him the great democrat?) Without being neo-nationalist or falling into populism ... Surprising isn't it? If we talk about the heads of government, what about the Hollande-Merkel couple ... Hmm ... Another fight behind the scenes, each defending the meadow of his country (and so on ...). But the most ambiguous of all, was undoubtedly Sarkozy, so much the policy fell low under his reign and besides one sees in what climate took place the elections to take the head of the UMP. I believe that this simple example shows that there is nothing to be Manichean in the affairs of this world, and that all the work is to be put back on the carpet each time (it is the feeling that it leaves me , just a feeling not fixed on an idea and not final ...)
But the reason which prevails, is not really that of "
popular street movements..." Of the "
social justice"or what do I know ... Although the influence of these spheres of influence is not zero (In what world would we live, if they did not exist ...) And on the other hand, I do not know if to complain about it - it is a form of counter-power - and if Europe fell into anarchy, there would probably be millions of deaths ...
Overall, where are we now: we did not repeat the monstrous episodes of the First and Second World War ... The "war" was more on the economic ground ...
So I understand Le_Juste_milieu's concerns, there is something to worry about when we see the financial crisis, but inevitably, it is difficult to provide clear-cut answers ... All we can see is is the inevitable decline of America, since we are dealing almost with a single party foreign policy question ...!
However that may be, no matter who the people in power belong to, all that can be hoped for is respect for the rule of law. There they have a job ...
In the end, however, these spheres of influence will have to report to Civil Society.
I am amazed at your answer.
