5 ms·

Can someone "ELI5" this to me? How is it possible that in the Western world there is a collective 'they' that are doing this? It seems more reasonable that the

Can someone "ELI5" this to me? How is it possible that in the Western world there is a collective 'they' that are doing this? It seems more reasonable that the behavior we dislike is emergent. Anyone working in even a medium-sized company knows that it couldn't possibly collude to get out of its own way. How is it that the US government can do it? Who is this magical 'they' we keep blaming and criticizing? Sorry if I'm being dense - sincerely trying to understand.

tw04 11y ago
I dunno, AT&T had room 641a running for an awful long time. And when someone finally DID speak up, they were dismissed as a kook. I think you're greatly, GREATLY underestimating the amount of collusion that can and does occur.
- hellameta 11y ago
  Thank you for your response. I don't disagree that there is collusion - I disagree that it is as effective as we give it credit for. Namely, that there is a systematic 'them' which is against 'us'. That the NSA can tap communication is to me an example of very small collusion. It's the level alluded to here that confuses me: >... a new boogieman to justify the level of surveillance... the point is that it's never about what they say it's about. It's about control. Inverted totalitarianism. Is there really this kind of 'collusion' going on? Is there a backroom where people say this with a straight face? I'm completely prepared to hear this is the case but I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation. It seems to me these people go home to their wives and kids at the end of the day just like the rest of us. To build this a little further. I toy with the idea that we ourselves are creating these mythical boogymen and THAT is what hurts our ability to change anything. I don't know :\
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    I hesitated to respond because honestly, it's a dangerous question you are asking, and a truthful answer in the wrong place or time can be social and political suicide. I understand your view, and generally agree with your primary point that it's not a single overarching group in total control. The world of Machiavellian Realpolitik is much more nuanced and complex than that, and I mostly chalk it up to our tendency as humans seek to simplify things. First, I would like to point out that I consider Hanlon's razor a logical fallacy that should be relegated to the dustbin of debate. It is far too often used in the discussion of this matter. Now to your original question of who "they" is. In short, my conclusion is that it is primarily but not restricted to the supranational aristocratic elite, in particular the ones who desire global governance (at least on the surface). The most obvious example of this is the kinds of people who are C-level or board level who have positions across the world. A good primary jumping point for this would be the analysis of control networks in this very good paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.5728.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.5728.pdf All that paper does though is show the level of interconnectedness, but what it doesn't show is intent. That wasn't your question though and is best left for another discussion. The bottom line to me is that "they" is the uber-wealthy, and that class-warfare and return of a type of neo-feudalism is right around the corner if not already here. If you want to know where the collusion happens, look to the round table groups; eg. the council on foreign relations, the bilderberg group, the trilateral commision, and various think-tanks, superpacs, and tax-exempt foundations, and yes, even secret societies. The main mistake though is to think they are all in on it or even understand it. That's not how control at a high level works. Imagine how control of a secretive org such as the CIA/NSA works. It's so wrapped up in compartmentalization that it's easy to take people who mean well and task them with something they don't understand the bigger picture implications of, and combine many of them to accomplish a big thing that none of them understand but a few key people at the top. I propose that the majority of "the key people at the top" are comprimised in some form or fashion, so even they are pawns in a game they don't fully understand... many simply want to make money or protect their reputations, though some are most definitely being blackmailed or threatened with much, much worse.
    - hellameta 11y ago
      Thank you arca_vorago! First - I am saddened that a line of questioning could be deemed dangerous. So much for our 'progress'. > The main mistake though is to think they are all in on it or even understand it. I hope I have not misunderstood but what you've said really confirms to me that what we see is roughly emergent from individual actors (consider a group an actor as well) seeking out their own interests. Of course it makes obvious sense that people of like status/wealth know closely other people of similar status/wealth. This can only lead to collusion the same way my close friends and I could be seen to collude in relation to our, admittedly, far smaller sphere of influence. In general I agree with what you've said about Hanlon's razor but I also feel it is a useful approach simply as an exercise. Brute force remains a useful way to find the truth. Thanks again for your response! I truly appreciate being able to discuss a topic like this without it devolving ala. most reddit boards etc.
      - arca_vorago 11y ago
        "what we see is roughly emergent from individual actors (consider a group an actor as well) seeking out their own interests." I would slightly adjust this and say that the emergent actors are guided and coaxed from a distance, but yes, I agree, at base it is the self-interests that drive it among individual actors. That being said, there were supposed to be mechanisms in place to help prevent such power to accumulate, and it is the deliberate undermining of these separations, and balances and checks, that indicates to me intent beyond simple local non-state actor self-interest. I also greatly appreciate the fact that HN is one of the few places I feel comfortable enough conversations will maintain a certain level. Honest and open discussion is too far and few between these days, especially on such subjects as this.

tw04 11y ago

I dunno, AT&T had room 641a running for an awful long time. And when someone finally DID speak up, they were dismissed as a kook. I think you're greatly, GREATLY underestimating the amount of collusion that can and does occur.

hellameta 11y ago
Thank you for your response. I don't disagree that there is collusion - I disagree that it is as effective as we give it credit for. Namely, that there is a systematic 'them' which is against 'us'. That the NSA can tap communication is to me an example of very small collusion. It's the level alluded to here that confuses me: >... a new boogieman to justify the level of surveillance... the point is that it's never about what they say it's about. It's about control. Inverted totalitarianism. Is there really this kind of 'collusion' going on? Is there a backroom where people say this with a straight face? I'm completely prepared to hear this is the case but I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation. It seems to me these people go home to their wives and kids at the end of the day just like the rest of us. To build this a little further. I toy with the idea that we ourselves are creating these mythical boogymen and THAT is what hurts our ability to change anything. I don't know :\
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  I hesitated to respond because honestly, it's a dangerous question you are asking, and a truthful answer in the wrong place or time can be social and political suicide. I understand your view, and generally agree with your primary point that it's not a single overarching group in total control. The world of Machiavellian Realpolitik is much more nuanced and complex than that, and I mostly chalk it up to our tendency as humans seek to simplify things. First, I would like to point out that I consider Hanlon's razor a logical fallacy that should be relegated to the dustbin of debate. It is far too often used in the discussion of this matter. Now to your original question of who "they" is. In short, my conclusion is that it is primarily but not restricted to the supranational aristocratic elite, in particular the ones who desire global governance (at least on the surface). The most obvious example of this is the kinds of people who are C-level or board level who have positions across the world. A good primary jumping point for this would be the analysis of control networks in this very good paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.5728.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.5728.pdf All that paper does though is show the level of interconnectedness, but what it doesn't show is intent. That wasn't your question though and is best left for another discussion. The bottom line to me is that "they" is the uber-wealthy, and that class-warfare and return of a type of neo-feudalism is right around the corner if not already here. If you want to know where the collusion happens, look to the round table groups; eg. the council on foreign relations, the bilderberg group, the trilateral commision, and various think-tanks, superpacs, and tax-exempt foundations, and yes, even secret societies. The main mistake though is to think they are all in on it or even understand it. That's not how control at a high level works. Imagine how control of a secretive org such as the CIA/NSA works. It's so wrapped up in compartmentalization that it's easy to take people who mean well and task them with something they don't understand the bigger picture implications of, and combine many of them to accomplish a big thing that none of them understand but a few key people at the top. I propose that the majority of "the key people at the top" are comprimised in some form or fashion, so even they are pawns in a game they don't fully understand... many simply want to make money or protect their reputations, though some are most definitely being blackmailed or threatened with much, much worse.
  - hellameta 11y ago
    Thank you arca_vorago! First - I am saddened that a line of questioning could be deemed dangerous. So much for our 'progress'. > The main mistake though is to think they are all in on it or even understand it. I hope I have not misunderstood but what you've said really confirms to me that what we see is roughly emergent from individual actors (consider a group an actor as well) seeking out their own interests. Of course it makes obvious sense that people of like status/wealth know closely other people of similar status/wealth. This can only lead to collusion the same way my close friends and I could be seen to collude in relation to our, admittedly, far smaller sphere of influence. In general I agree with what you've said about Hanlon's razor but I also feel it is a useful approach simply as an exercise. Brute force remains a useful way to find the truth. Thanks again for your response! I truly appreciate being able to discuss a topic like this without it devolving ala. most reddit boards etc.
    - arca_vorago 11y ago
      "what we see is roughly emergent from individual actors (consider a group an actor as well) seeking out their own interests." I would slightly adjust this and say that the emergent actors are guided and coaxed from a distance, but yes, I agree, at base it is the self-interests that drive it among individual actors. That being said, there were supposed to be mechanisms in place to help prevent such power to accumulate, and it is the deliberate undermining of these separations, and balances and checks, that indicates to me intent beyond simple local non-state actor self-interest. I also greatly appreciate the fact that HN is one of the few places I feel comfortable enough conversations will maintain a certain level. Honest and open discussion is too far and few between these days, especially on such subjects as this.