4 ms·

The article is trying to implicate old rich men in wheelchairs that get together once a quarter to complain as running the intelligence services. Most of the d

The article is trying to implicate old rich men in wheelchairs that get together once a quarter to complain as running the intelligence services. Most of the direction comes from the deputy director level and below. Basically the long-termers and generals that aren't removed with every administration. They also have close ties to military contractors and are able to receive consulting fees while doing their jobs. The people mentioned in the article aren't in the loop and don't really have the passion.

api 12y ago
> The article is trying to implicate old rich men in wheelchairs In other countries we call such individuals 'oligarchs.' They probably are not involved much in the day-to-day nuts-and-bolts operation of these programs, but I'm sure they are involved in high-level goal setting and direction. There's really nothing all that new or surprising in the original linked article. We've known for a long time that there is a revolving door between every level of state and federal government and any number of business interests. Basically this is regulatory capture on a massive scale -- possibly up to and including the executive branch, NSA, DOD, and the entire government. While some of the information about the Business Roundtable is new, the CFR is a well-known old boy network club for power brokers. The article does contain some dubious speculation, but it's not central to the core thesis or to the long view. America like all large-scale complex societies is an oligarchy. Democracy is largely an illusion, or only operates at a low-mid tier level. The big decisions and long sighted policies are set by career bureaucrats, special interests, top CEOs, etc. The question we should be asking other than "who" is "why?" Is it just the natural tendency for bureaucracies to accumulate power, maybe a desire to suppress any future labor movement, and exaggerated fears of terrorism? Or is there a specific rationale, something that these people expect to see coming down the road in the future that they're preparing for now? One thing I've wondered for a long time is whether the Internet is seen as deeply threatening by high-ranking powerful individuals. The last time there was a major revolution in communication, namely the popularization of the printing press, the result was a flurry of revolutions that saw quite a few oligarchs lose their heads. Another potential threat I've wondered about is fossil fuel depletion. If additional sources of energy can't be brought online fast enough, it would basically necessitate the decommissioning of the middle class -- so-called "power down." The end result would look not terribly unlike the first of the Hunger Games films, with a few high-tech enclaves and a vast population living in medieval squalor. There's your civil unrest requiring over 400,000 troops.
- cinquemb 12y ago
  >The question we should be asking other than "who" is "why?" Well both could be important for different reasons. If the "public" is the "enemy" for whatever reason as to why, if members of the "public" wanted to act in some way, the "public" would probably be more effective, in whatever their aims may be tactically, than do so otherwise without having a "who". >…The end result would look not terribly unlike the first of the Hunger Games films, with a few high-tech enclaves and a vast population living in medieval squalor. There's your civil unrest requiring over 400,000 troops. And such a force would be reliant upon and even larger supportive effort of some population. For such force could be initially effective, but if the "enemy" is all around such a force and one is reliant upon that "enemy", long term it isn't an effective solution. I think sun tzu works might be more informative as a source on such compared to works generated for dubious entertainment value.

api 12y ago

> The article is trying to implicate old rich men in wheelchairs In other countries we call such individuals 'oligarchs.' They probably are not involved much in the day-to-day nuts-and-bolts operation of these programs, but I'm sure they are involved in high-level goal setting and direction. There's really nothing all that new or surprising in the original linked article. We've known for a long time that there is a revolving door between every level of state and federal government and any number of business interests. Basically this is regulatory capture on a massive scale -- possibly up to and including the executive branch, NSA, DOD, and the entire government. While some of the information about the Business Roundtable is new, the CFR is a well-known old boy network club for power brokers. The article does contain some dubious speculation, but it's not central to the core thesis or to the long view. America like all large-scale complex societies is an oligarchy. Democracy is largely an illusion, or only operates at a low-mid tier level. The big decisions and long sighted policies are set by career bureaucrats, special interests, top CEOs, etc. The question we should be asking other than "who" is "why?" Is it just the natural tendency for bureaucracies to accumulate power, maybe a desire to suppress any future labor movement, and exaggerated fears of terrorism? Or is there a specific rationale, something that these people expect to see coming down the road in the future that they're preparing for now? One thing I've wondered for a long time is whether the Internet is seen as deeply threatening by high-ranking powerful individuals. The last time there was a major revolution in communication, namely the popularization of the printing press, the result was a flurry of revolutions that saw quite a few oligarchs lose their heads. Another potential threat I've wondered about is fossil fuel depletion. If additional sources of energy can't be brought online fast enough, it would basically necessitate the decommissioning of the middle class -- so-called "power down." The end result would look not terribly unlike the first of the Hunger Games films, with a few high-tech enclaves and a vast population living in medieval squalor. There's your civil unrest requiring over 400,000 troops.

cinquemb 12y ago
>The question we should be asking other than "who" is "why?" Well both could be important for different reasons. If the "public" is the "enemy" for whatever reason as to why, if members of the "public" wanted to act in some way, the "public" would probably be more effective, in whatever their aims may be tactically, than do so otherwise without having a "who". >…The end result would look not terribly unlike the first of the Hunger Games films, with a few high-tech enclaves and a vast population living in medieval squalor. There's your civil unrest requiring over 400,000 troops. And such a force would be reliant upon and even larger supportive effort of some population. For such force could be initially effective, but if the "enemy" is all around such a force and one is reliant upon that "enemy", long term it isn't an effective solution. I think sun tzu works might be more informative as a source on such compared to works generated for dubious entertainment value.