5 ms·

I believe our democratic process gets corrupted by the influence of money (and the legalization of bribery by the courts). But there’s no evidence this is all p

I believe our democratic process gets corrupted by the influence of money (and the legalization of bribery by the courts). But there’s no evidence this is all part of some coordinated effort that persists over time. Even if there is some evil cabal out there, they clearly do not exert complete influence as evidence by all the populists officials elected in the last four years. Why would Google/Facebook et al hand pick officials that want to break them up? These people are bad for big business because they act on reckless impulse. Also maybe the status quo democrats aren’t leftists after all? And yes, I think these are useful “labels”. You’re implying the Illuminati or someone made up the left/right dichotomy to divide us but these have been used for over 200 years. Finally, I don’t think supporting resource extraction is intrinsic to one side. Lots of socialist countries export billions of dollars of oil a year. Equating anti fossil fuel sentiment with leftism is a very western way of viewing the issue. Honestly the only conspiracy I really see is the political nihilism evinced online. It’s like some people want the citizenry to just give up or something. It’s still possible to exert political power as a normal voter. Don’t like the two choices you were presented with? Well did you vote in the primary? No? Oh gee. People are taking this article to mean we are all living in a veil of ignorance while our puppeteers present us with a false dichotomy. I think an easier explanation is the US Government is a lumbering bureaucracy with lots of momentum and a few newly elected officials aren’t going to change anything. People overrate the influence of individuals and try to form narratives that don’t exist to explain the world in a way that makes sense. When really events and changes emerge dynamically from complex systems in a way that can’t be easily explained

arminiusreturns 5y ago
I strongly disagree. Look, I understand that it is a safe line to take that the government is just inept, apathetic, etc, but that simply doesn't match the facts, and it has nothing to do with whats an easier explanation. Don't get me wrong, having been inside the system first hand there is quite a bit of ineptitude, lumbering bureaucratic systems, etc. I'm not saying thats not also true, but when you say there is no evidence this is part of some coordinated effort you are absolutely wrong. I really try hard not to get into "conspiracy theory territory" too much on HN because the conversation usually devolves, so I really don't want to get into a long list of evidence, but I could recommend The Anglo-American Establishment by Carrol Quigley as a good starting point for understanding how over-time agendas can be propagated and enacted. Perhaps the interview by Norman Dodd with G Edward Griffin about the tax exempt foundations. You are correct however when you say the powers that be don't have complete influence, but I would say that influence has grown vastly, mostly through consolidation of media and banking, and that to say it is extremely powerful influence is still an understatement. Also I would say it's a mischaracterization to say "Why would corporate execs hand pick officials that would break them up", one, because they aren't the real oligarchs behind the scenes, and two, because I highly doubt that any rhetoric about anti-trust/monopoly is real given the track record in that arena. [1] I strongly dislike this far too often used rhetorical clip used to dismiss any conspiracy you use: "form narratives that don’t exist to explain the world in a way that makes sense." How about we follow the evidence to the truth however ugly it may be. It often feels to me rather like when presented with darker narratives that do exist people would rather dismiss this like this as a way of burying their head in the sand to pretend things are better than they are. You aren't looking very hard then to be frank when you say "the only conspiracy I really see is..." Also, while I do think the voters take a large amount of responsibility, I don't think that is a good analysis of how entrenched the oligarchy are in electoral systems via the two party duopoly they control. Just take a look at your secretary of states website and look at how asinine the rules are for any party or person not a part of the duopoly. If the oligarchs control both parties, which they do, then the real threat would be from anybody outside that system and thats why you can see the evidence of how hard they have worked to stop the people from having any real mechanisms of influence themselves. Voting in primaries can help if another person gets on the ballot, but good luck actually doing that. Look, one of the most powerful tools the oligarchs have is that they think and operate on much longer timelines than the rest of us. They setup mechanisms, plans, etc that don't come to fruition until their children or grandchildren are at the helm. Until the people interested in this topic understand that, much of what is going on the world won't make much sense. In that note, I will leave you with a quote from Michael Parenti about this idea of absent minded empire. "Empires are even sometimes represented as unintentional. That's when it really starts to get cute. This should have been called maybe the funnier myths of empire, this part of it. The product of unconcious circumstance. When I was a youth, ... I used to hear that the British Empire was put together in a fit of absent mindedness. ... In fact, ladies and gentlemen, I think a moments reflection would tell you that empires are products of deliberate contrivance, of deliberate confection, planning, calculation, and manipulation. No social order can maintain itself in the long run, no social order can maintain itself without concious human agency. In fact that's why you have a state, the state is the concious human agency of coercion to maintain that particular set of interests and order, which don't necessarily always look out for our interests." - Michael Parenti 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTrqq0HwXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTrqq0HwXc
- dc-programmer 5y ago
  Thanks for the detailed response. I will check out The Anglo American Establishment

arminiusreturns 5y ago

I strongly disagree. Look, I understand that it is a safe line to take that the government is just inept, apathetic, etc, but that simply doesn't match the facts, and it has nothing to do with whats an easier explanation. Don't get me wrong, having been inside the system first hand there is quite a bit of ineptitude, lumbering bureaucratic systems, etc. I'm not saying thats not also true, but when you say there is no evidence this is part of some coordinated effort you are absolutely wrong. I really try hard not to get into "conspiracy theory territory" too much on HN because the conversation usually devolves, so I really don't want to get into a long list of evidence, but I could recommend The Anglo-American Establishment by Carrol Quigley as a good starting point for understanding how over-time agendas can be propagated and enacted. Perhaps the interview by Norman Dodd with G Edward Griffin about the tax exempt foundations. You are correct however when you say the powers that be don't have complete influence, but I would say that influence has grown vastly, mostly through consolidation of media and banking, and that to say it is extremely powerful influence is still an understatement. Also I would say it's a mischaracterization to say "Why would corporate execs hand pick officials that would break them up", one, because they aren't the real oligarchs behind the scenes, and two, because I highly doubt that any rhetoric about anti-trust/monopoly is real given the track record in that arena. [1] I strongly dislike this far too often used rhetorical clip used to dismiss any conspiracy you use: "form narratives that don’t exist to explain the world in a way that makes sense." How about we follow the evidence to the truth however ugly it may be. It often feels to me rather like when presented with darker narratives that do exist people would rather dismiss this like this as a way of burying their head in the sand to pretend things are better than they are. You aren't looking very hard then to be frank when you say "the only conspiracy I really see is..." Also, while I do think the voters take a large amount of responsibility, I don't think that is a good analysis of how entrenched the oligarchy are in electoral systems via the two party duopoly they control. Just take a look at your secretary of states website and look at how asinine the rules are for any party or person not a part of the duopoly. If the oligarchs control both parties, which they do, then the real threat would be from anybody outside that system and thats why you can see the evidence of how hard they have worked to stop the people from having any real mechanisms of influence themselves. Voting in primaries can help if another person gets on the ballot, but good luck actually doing that. Look, one of the most powerful tools the oligarchs have is that they think and operate on much longer timelines than the rest of us. They setup mechanisms, plans, etc that don't come to fruition until their children or grandchildren are at the helm. Until the people interested in this topic understand that, much of what is going on the world won't make much sense. In that note, I will leave you with a quote from Michael Parenti about this idea of absent minded empire. "Empires are even sometimes represented as unintentional. That's when it really starts to get cute. This should have been called maybe the funnier myths of empire, this part of it. The product of unconcious circumstance. When I was a youth, ... I used to hear that the British Empire was put together in a fit of absent mindedness. ... In fact, ladies and gentlemen, I think a moments reflection would tell you that empires are products of deliberate contrivance, of deliberate confection, planning, calculation, and manipulation. No social order can maintain itself in the long run, no social order can maintain itself without concious human agency. In fact that's why you have a state, the state is the concious human agency of coercion to maintain that particular set of interests and order, which don't necessarily always look out for our interests." - Michael Parenti 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTrqq0HwXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTrqq0HwXc

dc-programmer 5y ago
Thanks for the detailed response. I will check out The Anglo American Establishment