version

Well-known member
I dont know how forward blowback may be in planning but Im sure at least on some level its accounted for and that however blowback may inevitably take form it can likewise be turned into another advantageous situation. long term short termism.
True, but I imagine it's rarely desirable and that's more of a case of what I was saying about opportunities arising.
 

version

Well-known member
From what I can tell, the people orchestrating this sort of thing can be incredibly weird and paranoid and not necessarily that rational. They might be able to turn, say, a terrorist attack to their advantage, but they'd probably rather stage one or goad someone into it and feel they were controlling it the whole time than get caught flatfooted and have to respond to an authentic one.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I've been trying to pin down exactly what it is that makes some stuff feel like basically being realistic about how the world works, while other stuff feels inherently crackpot. Like, it's essentially some combination of how many people are involved and how outrageous the stuff that they're meant to be doing is.

For instance, you could kind-of peg Gramsci's theory of hegemony as a "conspiracy theory" because it's essentially about a whole class of people colluding to achieve something, but you wouldn't because it's basically an emergent property of a whole load of little bits of locally plausible, self-interested behavior. Whereas MK Ultra at the opposite end of the scale involved explicitly coordinated and obviously shady stuff, but the people doing the shady stuff were basically a relatively small number of operatives of the US Government's Department for Shady Stuff, so again, it doesn't feel that out there. Whereas when you work it through, proper crackpot stuff tends to need you to believe in a whole load of people having been strongarmed into doing stuff that's way outside what they'd normally do without anyone speaking up...
Yeah I think this is an important distinction to define and bear in mind. Personally I want to better understand the statutory arrangements of power, what offices endow what discretionary decision-making privileges, and how this statutory framework can be ignored, neglected, exploited, etc by whoever is in a position to operate without accountability or oversight.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
In the case of the US, I do think the separation of powers has a significant effect on minimizing corruption, but even the sheer complexity of the rules privileges those with the literacy and connections necessary to exploit it, while those who would be holding them accountable simply cannot get a footing in terms of understanding the rules.
 

version

Well-known member
From what I can tell, the people orchestrating this sort of thing can be incredibly weird and paranoid and not necessarily that rational. They might be able to turn, say, a terrorist attack to their advantage, but they'd probably rather stage one or goad someone into it and feel they were controlling it the whole time than get caught flatfooted and have to respond to an authentic one.
The impression I got from watching that Gladio series was that the appearance of disorder was desirable, but that it was all quite carefully planned and the people running it weren't looking to create a situation where just anyone was running around blowing stuff up. They wanted their people doing what they told them, but the public feeling it was an organic, chaotic thing.

I suppose the distinction here though is that that was a domestic thing and these people probably don't give as much of a shit if they're sowing chaos abroad and it remains abroad. That comes back to my point about blowback though and it never being guaranteed that you can contain it.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
From what I can tell, the people orchestrating this sort of thing can be incredibly weird and paranoid and not necessarily that rational. They might be able to turn, say, a terrorist attack to their advantage, but they'd probably rather stage one or goad someone into it and feel they were controlling it the whole time than get caught flatfooted and have to respond to an authentic one.
fair but that sounds more like an annoyance than some catastrophe for said people. like clearly Craner never cared about the people of Chile and its nuns to begin with.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
I guess I dont like the idea of the inevitable consequences of short termism being excusable because its all so complicated because I think the attitude on blowback from the apparatus in toto is generally ambivalent. not that anyone here was doing that
 

luka

Well-known member
one of the fun things about the iraq war and the bush administration is how many people involved were tarred with the iran contra stuff, but it just didnt matter. in fact it was a recommendation. you served the cadre, we look after our own.
 

version

Well-known member
fair but that sounds more like an annoyance than some catastrophe for said people.
True, but look how petty and vindictive some of them can be. Hoover was a nut. Nixon went mad with paranoia. These people are control freaks.
 

version

Well-known member
One of the mental hurdles with these books is they can seem a bit cranky and amateurish and unprofessional, but then, if what they're writing about is true, it's unsurprising that it's only those people writing about it and that they aren't being offered the services of big publishers and editors and so on.
There are a fair few books out there by people directly involved in this stuff too and they've all got like four reviews on Goodreads, perhaps not even a Wikipedia page and they're most likely out of print.

Jimmy FG's been tweeting stuff from an MI6 guy's memoir and he openly writes about blackmail strategies. It's crazy this stuff's freely available in books published by the people who actually did these things saying "yes, that's what we did," and nobody really cares or bothers to read them.

I can't remember who it was, but I once saw a quote saying something along the lines of them not really needing censorship in America for precisely that reason. The information's been out there on the shelves and nobody's arsed.
 

WashYourHands

Well-known member
5pnqfk.jpg
 

luka

Well-known member
@craner do you agree with this?

NOTHING could be more obvious to a non mind-damaged person now than that the oligarchy is going to great risky lengths in the cause of contraction. De growth. Enclosing the whole earth YES
 

luka

Well-known member
the key is depopulation and reduced living standards for the slaves. Bug diets, no travel, and short lives.

Gentrification strategy is the best known example Briefly: when they own it, destroy it. Seize it. When you own it, valorize and beautify it. Again: when they own it, exploit and pollute and impoverish. Get it. When you own it, green it and enrich it. this applies to Earth.
 
Top