Corruption, 'Deep Politics', etc.

[Mr. Tea]

Who runs the oligarchy?

The Ollie-garchs!

 

[craner]

but to beleive that there is a group powerful enough to, for example, draw up long term plans to slow growth, depopulate the earth, impose limitations on travel etc either to combat climate change or under the guise of combatting climate change is not inherently or inevitably anti-semitic in my view, particularly if we take climate change to be real, as i do.

It's what some people dream of. The liberal world government.

 

[DannyL]

It's structurally anti-Semitic though. It reproduces the same set of ideas, much as you're trying to disavow it's racist content

 

[craner]

but i dont think the premise is outright insane and there is evidence to support it.

The trouble is that all of the institutions that actually approach this level of power and reach are all intrinsically dysfunctional, fractious and flawed.

 

[luka]

It's structurally anti-Semitic though. It reproduces the same set of ideas, much as you're trying to disavow it's racist content

i think this is quite a silly argument. you wouldnt be able to carry it through with any conviction if you attempted to.

 

[craner]

The ones that aren't dysfunctional, fractious and flawed, but secret, efficient, ruthless and powerful tend, also, to exist only in speculations of magical thinkers who are hunting the controllers.

 

[luka]

The trouble is that all of the institutions that actually approach this level of power and reach are all intrinsically dysfunctional, fractious and flawed.

yes, this is what we are told and it may well be true but on the other hand we see, to give an example, a century of american hegemony and sustained soft power projection and wealth accumulation and we think, not unreasonably, that this is not acheived by dysfunction but by competence and unity of purpose.

 

[Mr. Tea]

but to beleive that there is a group powerful enough to, for example, draw up long term plans to slow growth, depopulate the earth, impose limitations on travel etc either to combat climate change or under the guise of combatting climate change is not inherently or inevitably anti-semitic in my view, particularly if we take climate change to be real, as i do.

Maybe such a 'group' (whether it considers itself in such terms or not) exists. Maybe it doesn't and humanity is just too unruly and complex and irrational for such large-scale control to really exist. But even assuming it does exist and does have that power, how would doing that suit them any better than the current setup? Arch-paranoiac you may be, but I think in this instance you're just not cynical enough. There's just far too much money to be made from people buying unnecessary things and making unnecessary journeys, whether that's Corpsey's annual fortnight in Crete or pointless office commutes for jobs that could be done at home. Just look at the pressure from the government for everyone to "get back to the office".

That's the obvious and boring answer, so I can see why you reject it. But I think it's probably the right one.

 

[craner]

yes, this is what we are told and it may well be true but on the other hand we see, to give an example, a century of american hegemony and sustained soft power projection and wealth accumulation and we think, not unreasonably, that this is not acheived by dysfunction but by competence and unity of purpose.

But that's because you have an almost total ignorance of historical detail.

 

[luka]

But that's because you have an almost total ignorance of historical detail.

detail is detail. its the trees that obscure the wood.

 

[craner]

Which is fine, I know, because that's part of the thinking strategy.

 

[craner]

It's also why these conversations always end up in dead ends with everybody being abusive to each other, like this one will in about 10 minutes time.

 

[luka]

That's the obvious and boring answer, so I can see why you reject it. But I think it's probably the right one.

well, im not commited to this narrative. i think it is a valid and logical construction. i think there are problems that arise if you assume it is true.
but i am interested in it becasue it is large and growing and is going into conflict with the established narrative. and i think there are advantages to the paranoid position and also disadvantages.

 

[luka]

so i present it partly to be looked at as a thing in the world with growing power and partly as a frame to interpret world events through and to see what it clarifies and what it distorts

 

[luka]

its like 'neoliberalism' you can look at all sorts of historical detail and decide, on the basis of that, that there is no neoliberalism at all. there are a whole number of occassions on which governments have acted in contradiction to the supposed tenets of 'neoliberalism'

 

[luka]

but the narrative frame still has power and interpretative value

 

[Mr. Tea]

yes, this is what we are told and it may well be true but on the other hand we see, to give an example, a century of american hegemony and sustained soft power projection and wealth accumulation and we think, not unreasonably, that this is not acheived by dysfunction but by competence and unity of purpose.

Right, but suppose, in an alternate time-line, that after being invaded by (primarily) the USA, Afghanistan and Iraq had somehow turned into peaceful, prosperous, liberal, secular democracies, in the Western model. Then someone taking your position about America's imperial ambitions would say, well that was clearly the plan all along.

In the real world, both countries were engulfed in internal conflicts, became magnets for foreign jihadis, had vast amounts of both military resources and humanitarian aid thrown at them, ended up with a "democratic" government so corrupt and compromised it barely functioned, and in one case is now fully under the control of religious fundamentalists. If the answer to that is, well that was clearly the plan all along, then just what sort of outcome could *not* be explained by the proposition that everything turned out just as America wanted it to?

 

[luka]

the outcome that couldnt be exaplined in that way would be the collapse of american power i suppose. but these are tired arguments and youre misunderstanding my position

 

[luka]

and in fairness even the collapse of american power is seen as part of the plan to transition to a world govt

 

[DannyL]

well, im not commited to this narrative.

This is just both-sidising it. Let's you state what you think - or what's entertaining for you to think - without ownership