the case for conspiracy

[tyrannosaurus vex]

we know for a fact that the most powerful people on earth rarely waste their time with morality. power and wealth is too important to be stymied by moral guidelines. people who roll with the Rothschilds are hardly going to worry about the dirty business of keeping and growing their influence. these people control entire nations, entire economies. if you think mob bosses are playing for keeps, then you might be surprised to know that there are people who see mob bosses as kids playing in a sandbox they created as an afterthought. these people will fucking anybody.

so my question is, if so much is at stake, and there are people holding the reins to all this who are less concerned about fairness than most people are concerned about what's really in a Twinkie, then is it even possible for any movement to exist that could unseat these people? more specifically, is it possible that any public leader or politician could seriously hope to pose a threat to these elites?

take barack obama for example. this is a man who promises change, and it looks like he's on track to win this year's presidential election. but if the change he insists he will bring is real, it must amount to more of the same. because, if it didn't, someone very powerful would have him killed. either that, or obama is in on it. same with mccain. maybe not ron paul, but that guy's a nutcase.

[Cain]

Since this is semi-serious discussion, do you mind me moving it to Think For Yourself?  I think it may get a more thoughtful reception down there.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

good idea :/ i just clicked blindly.

[East Coast Hustle]

you can't beat them.

so, you know what to do.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I don't think this is just a "theory"  I believe it.  And you are right, there is very little any elected official can do that is "against" this group.  Look at the few who have tried.  A prime example is Kennedy.  

I think these guys are allowed to make all the promises in the world they want to make during the campaign.  Once elected however, it's time for that "reality check" meeting letting them know EXACTLY who is REALLY in charge and what the true agenda is.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Yeah, the president-elect gets the National Security Briefing, where I'm sure he sits down and gets told how it is. But I also think there's at least a general awareness of this anyway among anyone who is in the position to even possibly become President (or any other office of any major country with any influence). Major political campaigns used to ask big questions and make big plans, but not for at least 100 years.

For the past few generations, political discussion among those who actually have or can get power are limited to relatively superficial topics -- gay marriage, health care, abortion, etc. Important subjects, but not of the caliber that has much effect on the historical trajectory of a nation or group of nations. It kinda seems like there is momentum in a certain direction, and nobody questions that momentum, only what kind of scenery we should get to see along the way.

[LMNO]

I don't think the majority of the power elite are cold-hearted monsters -- At least, not it the comic-book, movie-stereotype sort of way.

I see them as charismatic, well-intentioned people who, in order to get to the position where they can really influence things, have to make a thousand tiny sacrifices and compromises, until they've sold their principles back and forth so much, they don't even realize how much they've given up.

To me, it seems like the power-mad sharks only make it to a certain level before they're eaten by their own.  It's the negotiators and the diplomats who, in giving up this for that, and that for this, and back again, unknowingly preserve the status quo.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I don't think the majority of the power elite are cold-hearted monsters -- At least, not it the comic-book, movie-stereotype sort of way.

I see them as charismatic, well-intentioned people who, in order to get to the position where they can really influence things, have to make a thousand tiny sacrifices and compromises, until they've sold their principles back and forth so much, they don't even realize how much they've given up.

To me, it seems like the power-mad sharks only make it to a certain level before they're eaten by their own.  It's the negotiators and the diplomats who, in giving up this for that, and that for this, and back again, unknowingly preserve the status quo.

So they start out wanting to make things better for everyone for all the right reasons?  Ok I can agree with that.  The problem is once they've gone so far that they start to resemble Lex Luther they've lost the ability to know right from wrong or they have come to believe it's all for the greater good?  And what?  Their greater good and the greater good for the people have NOTHING in common?

[LMNO]

No, it becomes issues like, "If you want clean drinking water for X% of people, you have to let X% of people starve."

What do you do?  Let X amount of people starve, or deprive X amount of people clean drinking water?

[Jasper]

The problem, forgive my cliche, is that power corrupts.  Has anyone else noticed that there's more absolute power in the world than ever?  Even the serfs (well, us at any rate) have some degree of worldly influence via modern technology.

With so much power just floating about for the taking, there is next to zero chance nobody would grab it.  Modern technology makes it possible to track most all of the money, people, and known resources, and everything in between, and keep everybody informed and in touch while at it.  Modern weapons make it possible to kill any number of people in most ways imaginable, essentially regardless of defenses. 

Power corrupts.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

No, it becomes issues like, "If you want clean drinking water for X% of people, you have to let X% of people starve."

What do you do?  Let X amount of people starve, or deprive X amount of people clean drinking water?

So do they choose the highest percentage, or is it those who can do the most for them in the long run?  How is it decided which sacrifice is acceptable for "the greater good" of all?  Can they make that decision after they have comprimised their morals for so long?

We have a small third world country of 300,000 people who need clean drinking water.  To get that water to them, we divert it from another country farther north of 150,000, but in doing so will have to destroy all of their food crops, including those they would export.  The kicker is, they export, let's say, a rare truffle, who is picked?

[East Coast Hustle]

I don't think this is just a "theory"  I believe it.  And you are right, there is very little any elected official can do that is "against" this group.  Look at the few who have tried.  A prime example is Kennedy.  

[Golden Applesauce]

No, it becomes issues like, "If you want clean drinking water for X% of people, you have to let X% of people starve."

What do you do?  Let X amount of people starve, or deprive X amount of people clean drinking water?

So do they choose the highest percentage, or is it those who can do the most for them in the long run?  How is it decided which sacrifice is acceptable for "the greater good" of all?  Can they make that decision after they have comprimised their morals for so long?

We have a small third world country of 300,000 people who need clean drinking water.  To get that water to them, we divert it from another country farther north of 150,000, but in doing so will have to destroy all of their food crops, including those they would export.  The kicker is, they export, let's say, a rare truffle, who is picked?

It's less "who is picked" as much as "who has the military to do it for themselves."  Whoever is upstream will probably end up winning.

ETA: unless the upstream people can make more money selling bottled water to the downstream guys.

[Cain]

To answer the OP: yes.

There are plentiful examples of history being dislocated by movements who do not have the interests of the status quo of the time at heart.  To name three:

The French Revolution/Napoleon
The October Revolution in Russia
Hitler's rise to power

Admittedly, they are not the sort of people who you would necessarily want to associate yourself with (I do have a preference for Napoleon's crusading liberalism, despite his own insincerity towards it), but they have managed to disrupt the international system many times before.

In fact, both in the case of Hitler and Napoleon, the powerful around the world reshaped their methods to explicity deal with such problems arising again.  Napoleon led to the British policy of safeguarding the balance of power - intervening when one side looked like it would become too powerful, in order to maintain the status quo (ie them).  As for Hitler...I'll quote Salter here:

"Hitler's successes in the realm of International Relations led to his adoption by the IR community as its worst-case scenario – a lunatic against whom they had to protect themselves. Hitler's philosophy of struggle, violence and brutality became the touchstone of postwar theorists. Just as Napoleon had caused a conservative reaction in European society, so too did Hitler elicit a defence of the Westphalian system, with its values of balance, statehood and sovereignty."

So, not the greatest role models in history.  Yet, at the same time, they do point us in a couple of useful directions.  Machiavelli is always a good starting point.  In chapter 6 of The Prince he says:

"Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed."

In short history, political elites, respect force far more than anything else.  And with good reason: elites are just as human as anyone else.  They also die when they get a bullet in the head, or are facing the guillotine.  Power is considered a zero-sum game as well, if someone else has plenty of power, then unless their power has increased to the level where it obliterates that advantage, they have lost power (this is an important rule of imperial expansion - since the aim is impose oneself as a hegemon, as an actual expression of the symbolism of the rule of the system, its aims are limitless and any increase in power is a threat).

The problem lies in the nature of the aims.  Our current system is born out of a compromise of reformist attitude (just enough to stave off revolution) created by rising expectations and the desire to retain systems of control and coercion out of the hands of anyone but the ultra-wealthy and well connected.  Therefore there is a "pulling" in both directions - one being the desire to do away with those currently pulling the strings, and the other realizing that despite this, our current system does see to our basic needs (decreasingly so, it must be admitted) and so perhaps does not deserve the violent maelstrom that revolution would unleash.

The problem is simply one of proportion.  Reformist aims generally mix badly with political violence.  In Weimar Germany, only those who viewed the liberal-democratic regime as intolerable (the NSDAP and and KPD - Nazis and Communists) had paramilitary arms to their political parties.  Proportion is a key element in the deployment of violence.  For instance, this is why nations with nukes refuse to disarm the rest of their military forces.  If you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  And the mass use of nukes in, say, Vietnam or the first Gulf War, would not have been acceptable or conducive to achieving the aims required.

And thus it is with domestic politics.  You could unleash a Jacobin Terror 2.0, but if your aim is to tweak social security, have universal health care and reduce executive privilege, then you are going to be damned to hell and back, and quite likely lose any popular support for your policies.  Now, if you were ranged against an autocratic Absolute Monarchy or a new Hitler, you may have a little more support (though it is worth noting the history of the French Revolution, including the conservative backlash all over Europe against it).

This is why I am fascinated by the potential of 5GW.  The possibility of using memetics and emergence to influence an outcome, reducing the need for kinetic operations (ie killing people), to create a world I would prefer, is very interesting.  Because the violent aspect is much lower, and the use of indirect force/psychological operations/cultural capital are much higher, it could be a useful tool for change within partially reformist systems, such as modern liberal democracy.  The violence done to truly intractable elements could be seen as accident or the acts of others, meanwhile by utilizing the above methods the population could be mobilized behind such reformist ideals.

As an example.

[AFK]

we know for a fact that the most powerful people on earth rarely waste their time with morality. power and wealth is too important to be stymied by moral guidelines. people who roll with the Rothschilds are hardly going to worry about the dirty business of keeping and growing their influence. these people control entire nations, entire economies. if you think mob bosses are playing for keeps, then you might be surprised to know that there are people who see mob bosses as kids playing in a sandbox they created as an afterthought. these people will fucking anybody.

so my question is, if so much is at stake, and there are people holding the reins to all this who are less concerned about fairness than most people are concerned about what's really in a Twinkie, then is it even possible for any movement to exist that could unseat these people? more specifically, is it possible that any public leader or politician could seriously hope to pose a threat to these elites?

take barack obama for example. this is a man who promises change, and it looks like he's on track to win this year's presidential election. but if the change he insists he will bring is real, it must amount to more of the same. because, if it didn't, someone very powerful would have him killed. either that, or obama is in on it. same with mccain. maybe not ron paul, but that guy's a nutcase.

I like Obama, I will vote for Obama, I think he is the best person for the job at this point and time. 

That said, I really think this current two-party system will not allow for a member of one of those two parties to really shake things up.  At least, it will make it extremely difficult.  Because that person needs what is commonly called Political Capital.  Now, this go around, Obama should have a backing of a Democratic majority, and maybe even a filibuster-proof majority.  Which means, if he is going to shake things up, he's going to have to do it in his first 2 years.  (assuming he wins of course)  After that, if the Dems are culled in the 2010 elections, it will be right back to the normal party-driven, gridlock politics. 

If there is only one promise Obama delivers on, I want it to be the one where he talked about getting more people, more Average Joes, involved in civic participation and public service.  Because that is where you can actually allow some meaningful change to seep into The System.  It's been pretty exclusive over the past many decades, if not longer.  Perhaps having more citizens involved in meaningful endeavours that can impact public policy can be that seed of change that is needed.  And I think with the impending demographic shift underway, this is probably the best opportunity our country has had in awhile for that seed to take root. 

It will be interesting to see where the country goes if he does win.  I'm a little pessimistic because I think the state of the Economy and finding a way out of Iraq are going to dominate his agenda.  I'm not sure he'll even have the luxury of contemplating how to shift things.  This just goes to show how the insidiousness of Bush policies are potentially going to be even more far-reaching then anyone has imagined.