Divided and Conquered

[Michigan Swampbuck]

If you don't use the playbook, I won't offer any links about what I meant by that. I also will refuse to give you more insight into my state of mind. If you know about rural Michigan in the 80s and 90s, you might have a vague idea of my position on current conditions. I have associated with a number of groups, including AIM, when they were having trouble in Canada. I avoid all that now. I hope that tells you what you might like to know, or maybe you will remain clueless, which is probably better for all of us.

[TokenLiberal]

Well, I suppose "all of us" are in luck because none of that means anything to me. Why is it best if I remain clueless about your history?

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Hah, hah, hah!

Sorry for laughing. I thought my obscure references would be enough to run a search and discover for yourself where I am coming from. I'm also sorry that I will no longer play 20 questions and derail the topic of my own thread.

[TokenLiberal]

If asking my wife, who is from Michigan, and googling AIM only to find out it's a fairly common acronym counts as searching, then I did.

Anyway, it's fine, let's get back to the topic. Since you think someone or some group is pulling the strings, who?

[Michigan Swampbuck]

If asking my wife, who is from Michigan, and googling AIM only to find out it's a fairly common acronym counts as searching, then I did.

Anyway, it's fine, let's get back to the topic. Since you think someone or some group is pulling the strings, who?

Very good. There are numerous possibilities that range from almost none to an entirely corrupt system. If everyone is out for themselves, and polarization is naturally a consequence of this, then corruption is likely systemic. Trust in any information from the system is foolish.

If the system is mostly not corrupt, then we can be reassured that any "authority" is likely worthy of our trust. Just go with the program and you'll be well informed.

Anything in between is up for debate and will involve verification through various sources, with the most weight given to the info with the greatest number of verifiable sources. Without such verification, it would be shooting dice, and you'd never be close to certain of what the situation really was.

So, is it a chaotic progression where very few, if any, are behind an agenda of control, or is the whole thing only about control? Or is it shades of gray?

I suspect there are some whose goal is world domination at some level or the other, but have no evidence who or what that may be. Nor would I know positively if anyone has attempted to influence world opinion for some agenda. Regardless, I'm sure that nothing is new under the sun (more or less) and the postmodern dilemma (it's all been done before) is still a factor.

I know, this doesn't name any names, but it outlines my method of deduction. If I am making assumptions based on flawed reasoning, then please correct me.

[FCD]

...

I suspect there are some whose goal is world domination at some level or the other, but have no evidence who or what that may be. Nor would I know positively if anyone has attempted to influence world opinion for some agenda. Regardless, I'm sure that nothing is new under the sun (more or less) and the postmodern dilemma (it's all been done before) is still a factor.

...

You're on target here.  I guess the only point or clarification I would add is that there are likely many who have a 'goal' of World domination, but they're living in fantasy land and have exactly zero chance of ever achieving that goal, despite them having mountains of money.  And then there are others whom may have similar sized mountains of money, but the money means little to them; it's the 'power and control' that they're going after.  These are the ones who are truly dangerous.  Here again, Soros is a great example of this.  Even though he has more money than people can even dream of, he lives a relatively modest lifestyle by comparison.  The balance of his checking account doesn't matter nearly as much to him as the ability to use this money as a tool to bring entire empires to their knees.  It's the power, control and ability to do things like that which give him a chubby.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

You're on target here.  I guess the only point or clarification I would add is that there are likely many who have a 'goal' of World domination, but they're living in fantasy land and have exactly zero chance of ever achieving that goal, despite them having mountains of money.  And then there are others whom may have similar sized mountains of money, but the money means little to them; it's the 'power and control' that they're going after.  These are the ones who are truly dangerous.  Here again, Soros is a great example of this.  Even though he has more money than people can even dream of, he lives a relatively modest lifestyle by comparison.  The balance of his checking account doesn't matter nearly as much to him as the ability to use this money as a tool to bring entire empires to their knees.  It's the power, control and ability to do things like that which give him a chubby.

I wouldn't want my ability to have an erection depend on either my bank account or how much power I think I have. The little guy has a mind all his own and I avoid encouraging him.

[FCD]

I wouldn't want my ability to have an erection depend on either my bank account or how much power I think I have. The little guy has a mind all his own and I avoid encouraging him.

   Well, it was a figure of speech, but I reckon' you understood that!

On 2nd thought, wouldn't you want some power behind that erection?

[Michigan Swampbuck]

   Well, it was a figure of speech, but I reckon' you understood that!

On 2nd thought, wouldn't you want some power behind that erection?

No need for little blue pills, my friend, I eat well enough to keep me healthy. Damn if I ain't much better than a randy teen at 60, a true curse.

[TokenLiberal]

Very good. There are numerous possibilities that range from almost none to an entirely corrupt system. If everyone is out for themselves, and polarization is naturally a consequence of this, then corruption is likely systemic. Trust in any information from the system is foolish.

If you can trust people and corporations to do one thing, it's to act according to their individual incentives. For corporations, it's the bottom line. Media orgs don't have an ideology. They have a market (people) that they're trying to reach, and whatever they do, they do because the market rewards it.

If the system is mostly not corrupt, then we can be reassured that any "authority" is likely worthy of our trust. Just go with the program and you'll be well informed.

I think your sense that the system is somehow corrupt is right, and I think everyone who lives in it intuitively perceives this corruption. What it ultimately comes down to, I believe, is Moloch. In this "everyone for themselves" system we have created, we run into significant conflicts of interest between individuals (whether that's corporations or individual people) and the collective. These conflicts of interest, which at the core are unhealthy incentives from competition, are what makes us feel like something is wrong. And something is wrong. It might be what closes the curtain on humanity, eventually.

If something has divided and conquered us, it's Moloch. In other words, yes, the problem is systemic.

BUT, importantly, this doesn't mean we can't trust anything that comes out of it. There are still incentives for good journalism. After all, there's still a demand for it (I for one am in the market for it, as I hope you are). The best media organizations still hold themselves to editorial standards not out of some ideological drive, but because their customers would punish them if they didn't. This is why I said earlier that the MSM is still the best source of news. They are incentivized not to lie, unlike content creators on social media or highly partisan media orgs.

Anything in between is up for debate and will involve verification through various sources, with the most weight given to the info with the greatest number of verifiable sources. Without such verification, it would be shooting dice, and you'd never be close to certain of what the situation really was.

So, is it a chaotic progression where very few, if any, are behind an agenda of control, or is the whole thing only about control? Or is it shades of gray?

I suspect there are some whose goal is world domination at some level or the other, but have no evidence who or what that may be. Nor would I know positively if anyone has attempted to influence world opinion for some agenda. Regardless, I'm sure that nothing is new under the sun (more or less) and the postmodern dilemma (it's all been done before) is still a factor.

I know, this doesn't name any names, but it outlines my method of deduction. If I am making assumptions based on flawed reasoning, then please correct me.

The first thing I'll say about global domination is that it's, at least right now, impossible. Even dominating the US alone, which represents less than 5% of the global population, would require an enormous, coordinated effort that would be impossible to hide, and a gigantic amount of resources. Then, the next challenge: Europe, representing 10% of the global population, a continent full of democracies where buying politicians is hard if not impossible given the current legal restrictions. Then, China. You want to buy the CCP? Good luck.

This is something we can safely assume powerful people are smart enough to understand. They know world domination is not a realistic goal. Everyone who has any modest level of understanding about how the world works, understands this. So if there is a premise of yours that I would challenge, it's that anyone is pursuing it. I don't think anybody is. It would be incredibly stupid and naive of them to believe they have even the tiniest chance of success. And of course, even if someone is pursuing it, we know they won't succeed. It's hubris. They will just end up wasting all of their money.

Mostly, we can expect the rich and powerful to try to steer the world in ways that they think will make it better for them and theirs, or steer it in a way that brings it closer to their ideological ideal. In subtle ways, they can do this. But they have no illusions about dominating the world, or even any one country. When it comes to dominating public policy, it is politicians we have to look at. Trump is certainly trying, most of what he does is an attempt to shore up power. If anyone is "dominating" the US right now, it's him. He will try for a third term, and if he had his way he'd be in power until his death. But I don't think he'll succeed.