The Instigator
Lookingatissues
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Swindenland
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The elites agenda is never their true agenda

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 102460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Lookingatissues

Pro

The elite intelligentsia , those who supposedly have only the most noblest of intentions when they promote some grand plan for society oft times have a hidden agenda which they wish to see that the rest of mankind Obediently submit to. The elite are if anything resourceful in finding other elite who are of like mind and will contribute large sums of money in the form of grants and talent to promote the elite's agenda along. the elite would never openly reveal the real agenda that they're interested in foisting on the rest of the world but hide their true agenda behind just stated goals as saving the world from Global warming, or over population, threatening the worlds ability to sustain ever growing population any longer. Margaret Sanger, The Ford foundation, Gates Foundation the United Nations, Were quick to lend a hand in carrying out the elites agendas . In a book , " Fatal Misconception, " by Matthew Connelly, he reveals that there was a lot of deception being carried out by those elite who had a hidden agenda which they were really interested in achieving and in the course of time switched their stories about what they were attempting to accomplish. In the end, the objective and agenda of these elite was to gain power and subjugation of other humans to their will "An SDS radical once wrote, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." In other words, the cause of a political action " whether civil rights or women"s rights " is never the real cause; women, blacks and other "victims" are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power."
Quote by discoverthenetworks.org
Swindenland

Con

Hi there,

I found this interesting debate and thought that it might be a good one. I will take the con side and try to explain, why exactly the elite's agenda truly is their agenda. I wish good luck to pro and hope that this will be a civilised and constructive debate.

The pro should now present his full argument, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Lookingatissues

Pro

You are correct in the statement that you made in your acceptance of the debate that the " the elite's agenda truly is their agenda...."and has never changed.
The elites true agenda that they are pursuing and have been pursuing since the Franklin Delano Roosevelt " New Deal," hasn't changed only the subterfuges used change over time. I previously mentioned several Philanthroic foundations of wealthy individuals that donated money to benefit certain Initiatives they were interested in promoting.
This quote gives a different more accurate perspective : "Philanthropy given by the wealthiest of families foundations that they set up are not always charitable donations given without prejudicial motives, prejudicial motives to directly enforce their personal agendas on society...." Author unknown..
"CharityNavigator.org added the Clinton Foundation
to its "watch list......the Clinton Foundation is one of only 23 charities on the watch list."
As ..."An SDS radical once wrote, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." In other words, the cause of a political action " whether civil rights or women's rights " is never the real cause; women, blacks and other "victims" are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power."
Quote by discoverthenetworks.org
In the book by Saul D. Alinski," Rules For Radicals," The Eighth Rule: " Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
The wealthy, and when I refer to the wealthy, I am referring to such families as the Clintons, The Hines foundation, The the-Rockefeller foundations The Ford foundation, the Gates Foundation, George Soros backed Foundations as the wealthy who have a agenda which they contribute to enforce their true agendas, not their publicly stated objectives.
Swindenland

Con

I would like to thank pro for his argumentation, I shall now present mine and counterargument his.

First of all the elite, if we recognise them as people, who have significant influence on our society, are not a single entity. They are composed of a lot of heavily different individuals with diverse views and interests. Due to the very nature of capitalism, there's a lot of competition between the elitists in all fields, from politics to commerce. It is true that elitists with similar interests might cooperate, however the whole elite would never hold together.

The general objective of important people is to make money or be successful. Therefore the elite is primarily interested in creating even more money and keeping it, the methodology depends again on the individual. For example, many, but not all rich will stick together, whenever taxes might get raised. They will try everything to prevent this, but not because they have an evil club with the intention to take over the planet, but merely to protect their wealth collectively. This creates the illusion, as if the rich are trying to push for an secret agenda, but they're actually only strategically enforcing a interest they all have.

Just 5 years ago it seemed, as if green technology only hurts the economy, can only be achieved through government incentives and that oil is gold. But there were many innovative people, who found a way how to make money using the technology and so the market in the sector was created and many people got rich and many rich got richer. The oil companies know that, if we stop buying oil, they stop making money and so only tried to protect their interests, but other rich had other interests.

The so-called elitist agenda is only a generalisation of what a greater number of rich people support.
Now, because rich people mainly want to make money, their agenda, constantly adapts to the new environment. I mean adaptation to clients and suppliers, its competition and owners, improvements in technology, laws and government activities, and market, social and economic trends. This mechanism works a kind of like a company does.

Maybe some random rich guy or two really want to get more control, but the majority does not, they only want to optimise the system for themselves to make money. There is no evidence that multiple rich are involved in a conspiracy.

But I would also like to point out, that this illusion may only appear in societies with great income inequality and more indirect political systems, including the States. Whereas in places like Sweden, the 30 billionaires they have, have way less influence and due to a more democratic system and more extensive education the rich could not even try to enforce any secret agenda, because the people would intercept their intentions and stop them in time.


The rich are adaptable, even in the US they recognised that inequality is a problem, more and more will begin to push for change and at some point we will say that is their agenda. They will actually do so only to make more money and to protect their wealth and this is no secret. However there will always be conspiracy theorists believeing that something else is going on.

You can check a good video on the topic:
https://www.ted.com...



clients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com... I mean





clients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com...



clients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com...



lients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com...


lients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com...


lients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com...


lients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic trends.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com...lients and suppliers; its competition and owners; improvements in technology; laws and government activities; and market, social and economic
Debate Round No. 2
Lookingatissues

Pro

You posted in your response the following,"First of all the elite, if we recognise them as people, who have significant influence on our society, are not a single entity......."
The super wealthy such as the Rockefellers The Kennedys, Johm Kerry.. Hines fortune, Clintons,George Soros, are united in their objectives. The wealth and special privileges of massive wealth that the ordinary citizen is unable to comprehension and have the ability to grasp just what such wealth might mean to those who possess it. Those who possess wealth restrict their association to those of similar wealth and position all around the world and because of this think of themselves as citizens of the world not of one particular country and don't have a loyalty to any particular nation.Their associates, as their investments, are world wide as are those that they associate with. This shared feelings of the wealthy being citizens of the world causes them to believe that their wealth would allow them to continue to live well no matter if a calamity would strike one individual country.
In a Book by Charles Gasparino, titled "BOUGHT AND PAID FOR," the author exposes the connections that the wealthy have with government and those in positions of power in the government. The wealthy also have the ability to strongly influence what policies are put into effect by that government. The wealthy do it through such entities as the federal reserve, banking institutions such as Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and by financing politicians who are in position to further the wealthy's special interests.
The wealthy are united in their attitudes of the wealthy that they are unique in believing that they are citizens of the world and owe no special allegiance to any nation such as the working class of citizens hold. ".....a basket of deplorables ," as Hillary Clinton previously had remarked when running for president.
Swindenland

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his last argument and for this nice debate we've had.

Pro mentioned that the rich have strong ties with the governments all around the world, which is often true, however this influence is not homogeneous. The rich have way greater influence in some countries (like most countries in the Americas, excluding Canada), while way less in others (such as in the Nordic countries).

And again the rich are not hiding their "agenda," they've just all got the same interest of protecting their wealth, which they protect in many ways, which often includes influencing politics.

All those rich people you've mentioned live exclusively in the US, where the rich truly have greater influence, due to the indirect political system and high GINI. Which is interesting, because Switzerland taxes its richest citizens, on the confederal level, with 13.2%, but due to a more direct political system, the rich there can't control the country.

The rich have influence, but the question that pro did not answer remains open. Is there any objective evidence that rich people secretly cooperate to achieve goals they did not disclose to the public?

No, but there are a ton of individual cases, where individuals, not groups, heavily influenced politics for their personal purposes, usually to make money. We call this political corruption.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.