A Quick Correction (not a rant)

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The West (meaning 1st-World governments), particularly the U.S. Government, is NOT after a global empire in the traditional sense.  Throw away the "conquer the world" conspiracies, they're missing the point.

Governments are in the business of self-preservation, and the politicians are right when they say there is a monumental threat to our "way of life."  They're just lying about what that threat is -- it isn't terrorism, it's the sharp increase in demand for vital resources like food and oil in the developing world.

Strictly speaking, this doesn't need to be a catastrophic problem.  A few changes in the way resources are distributed throughout the planet could head off disaster.  But this means sacrifice, a concept as foreign to modern Western societies as the developing world whose growing needs threatens them.  And with many Western governments under the thumb of resource-dependent industries, there is little political will to push any such redistribution scheme.

This amounts to a deadly threat to the stability of the West, because they are built on the comfort of the population in the West, on the Easy Life their system has come to represent over the past 40 years.  Why do you think no one has been asked to ration food or fuel for the ongoing war effort in the middle east?  People didn't think twice to chip in 65 years ago during World War 2.  But they would refuse now, especially if they were told it was a permanent arrangement in order to increase global stability.

The best way forward for the West, as far as its self-serving political systems are concerned, is to disrupt or destroy the growing threat to their resource consumption that is emanating from the developing world.  It is not to build successful, "free" societies in the developing world, because these foster technological advance and improvements in living standards.  It is not to quell the threat of Terrorism, either.  The aim of our current War is simply to stop the advancement of the developing world.

There's more but I don't have time to go on at the moment.

[LMNO]

RAH!

[Cain]

I disagree.

I mean, to a point yes, you are totally right, but I very much doubt the point is to stop development.

Its to keep the means of wealth creation out of the hands of untrustworthy smudgy people, and especially those who may use their nationalization programs to keep those companies who may buy up important business out of the picture.

Consider the modus operandi of the IMF.

You are a third world leader, and you want a loan, to help develop the outlying and rural regions of your country.  So you go to the World Bank and IMF, for the cash.

The IMF say, "OK sure, we can give you the cash, but you're going to have to open up your markets to competition more.  Get rid of all this regulation and do a couple of other things and we can talk about it.  Otherwise, we can't do business.  And since we are the only credit lending international institutions, you're pretty fucked otherwise."

So the leader dutifully does as he is told and takes off all these regulations and passes some other laws to improve competitiveness.  But suddenly, because the economy is underdeveloped, there is an economic problem, which is steadily getting worse. 

So the leader then goes back to the IMF asking for advice, because he knows if he re-nationalizes or protects certain industries, he will lose the loan money.  The IMF will normally advise raising prices on certain goods and removing subsidies/decreasing government programs to help the poor.

Our leader then goes back and follows this advice.  Unsurprisingly, it takes the bottom out of the national economy and usually results in riots, hyperinflation and worthless national money.

And thats where the American and European businessmen (who have influence over their respective governments and thus the IMF/World Bank) step in.  Because the currency of the country is worthless and there are no protectionist laws, they step in and buy the biggest and most vital companies there (water, electricity etc) for bargain basement prices.  They invest a little, to stabilize the country, then bleed it dry.  It also acts as a useful threat, as should the new leaders of the country in question try to nationalize those companies again, the prices will be ramped up.  Or worse, the IMF and World Bank will blacklist them and the US and EU will become hostile.

And if a country refuses to play ball with the IMF in the first place?  Well, unless you have nukes or a big population, like China did, thats where invasion comes in.  Crack open the market, make your puppets pass laws that remove almost any regulation and let the investors come in and make it big.

[LMNO]

RAH!





Um... I can "rah" both posts simultaneously, right?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

sure, they're not mutually exclusive.

but the directions i was trying to take this in was that everyone keeps expecting USSR/Nazi-Germany style police states to start popping up in the West, which is believable if you think the point is world domination.  When I said their intent is to stop development in the developing world, I didn't phrase it effectively.  What I mean is that their point isn't territorial expansion, but nullification of emerging stable, resource-hungry industrial nations.  As long as "development" makes somebody rich, then they're all for it.

Anyway, the Police State is inevitable, but it will only be outright military rule in nations where the populace is not part of the power base of the ruling governments.  Subversion of civil liberties, like we already see happening, is how it will end up in the West.  That's just as bad, but the government will have to keep pretending that we are "free," which they have carefully trained people to equate with material possessions and the Easy Life.  So we in the West shouldn't worry about not having basic needs met, so long as it looks like we're playing the game.

The real implication I'm driving at here is that the traditional Discordian response to a police state, being the IRL-TAZ, is unnecessary because on the surface, we'll all look 'free' anyway.  To combat the monster lurking underneath -- the growing surveillance state, secret police, etc. -- a TAZ as defined by Hakim Bey is actually counterproductive.  The goal should be preventing the complete loss of knowledge and information, so it is the Internet (especially devices and technologies that allow you to communicate under the radar) that must be the basis for a successful TAZ.

My thoughts are all over the place, sorry for not being very succinct.  Too much coffee.

[Cain]

I can sympathize. I haven't eaten all day yet, and its nearly 6pm.  Dizziness ftl.

You raise some good points though, and I will come back to them, once I am sated.

And there is something else that will tie into this, but will have to take the form of another rant, because of its importance.