i don't often go into this deeper level of analysis, and don't be surprised if i don't pull it out again until close to the election, but you can broadly split american politics (and most politics in the satellite states, including canada) down this dividing line, between the rhodes clique (the aristocracy, who remain powerful at the un) and the birchers (the bourgeoisie, most importantly the koch brothers). the parties are both messy big tents, and don't really mean much. but, you see sides develop more readily when you look at the candidates' backgrounds, and it's easy to predict how they're going to legislate, regardless of what they actually say.
that's why this mayor pete is probably going to be in the same governing philosophy as clinton - an internationalist that wants to outsource foreign policy to the united nations (which i would support), is in favour of "free trade" (which i would not support), is in support of bringing in low wage workers from other countries (which i would not support) and says nice things about black people while legislating against them (which i would not support). if you're a black or latino democrat, you should rightfully be wary about a guy that was educated by a group designed to maintain the priority of the british aristocracy in the commonwealth, however bizarre those words might look to you on paper. you went through this with clinton. maybe you didn't really understand it then, but you have the opportunity to, now.
so, if you can split the spectrum this way, what about sanders?
as with everything else, he doesn't align; i see no evidence that either side has ever co-ordinated with him at all. if somebody shows me some, i'll change my mind. but, as it is, it's a part of the reason he's still exciting.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
the biggest error that the conspiracy theorists make is in assigning uniformity of opinion to the power elite; this idea that everything is connected, that there's a single force dominating everything. the illumnati, the masons, the nwo, the catholics, the muslims, the satanists, the monarchists, the communists, the nazis - they're all the same thing, and no amount of education on the topic can get through to them. it's as though they're projecting this hobbesian sovereign into reality, and then setting themselves upon it's destruction. you can't reason with them. the leviathan, this grendel, must be slain...
but, if you approach the conspiratorial view of history from a marxist perspective rather than a hobbesian perspective, you begin with the assumption of conflict rather than of uniformity; rather than having this singular force dominating the course of world events, you have different classes in conflict with each other, all trying to advance their own interests. specifically, you have an aristocratic class (that meets in universities), you have a bourgeois class (that runs the economy) and you have a banking class that sits in between them. as per marxist analysis, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie are in a constant jockeying for power.
if you want to approach this rigorously, the first thing you need to do is figure out if these groups actually exist(ed) or not, and the truth is that they actually do and/or did. all souls exists. skull and bones exists. the illuminati existed, and the catholic church stamped it out. masonic lodges were fundamental in both the french and american revolutions. the john birch society existed, too. so, these are not imaginary constructs - they are actual existing bodies, and the people that meet in them and/or advanced through them have been shaped by their goals and aspirations. this is all empirical, and demonstrated easily enough.
the next thing that you need to do is tie the aims of the organizations to the individuals you suspect of working for them. and, with that we can get to the point that i want to make about what actual forces are extant today, and what exactly the conflict points are.
for all the talk amongst conspiracy theorists about the "nwo", it is actually the primary conflict point. on the left, for all it's historical ills, you have the cliveden set - the all souls group, the rhodes scholars. this group has had dominance in the liberal party of canada for decades, and recently exerted itself in the united states through the presidency of bill clinton. the left, in context, is the aristocracy; odd, but it's the alliance, as it is. when i spoke of a deep state fear of a hillary clinton presidency, a part of it was allowing the rhodes clique back into power, out of fear of a collapse in sovereignty. the rhodes clique does in fact believe in world government, with a central administration in the united nations.
on the flip side of this is the right, the bourgeoisie, as represented by the john birch society, and also by the skull and bones clique of american industrialist powers. this side of the power elite actually rejects world governance, in favour of an american-dominated world, centered in washington. since the defeat of al gore in 2000, this side of the power elite has had almost total control over american politics. both john kerry and barack obama are actually on this side of the power elite, and despite their fears, hillary clinton would prefer this side as well - a point she went to great lengths to demonstrate, but could not do so.
so, who is this mayor?
i don't know.
but, if you want to know what he'll be like, the truth is that clinton is probably the better comparison than obama.
but, if you approach the conspiratorial view of history from a marxist perspective rather than a hobbesian perspective, you begin with the assumption of conflict rather than of uniformity; rather than having this singular force dominating the course of world events, you have different classes in conflict with each other, all trying to advance their own interests. specifically, you have an aristocratic class (that meets in universities), you have a bourgeois class (that runs the economy) and you have a banking class that sits in between them. as per marxist analysis, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie are in a constant jockeying for power.
if you want to approach this rigorously, the first thing you need to do is figure out if these groups actually exist(ed) or not, and the truth is that they actually do and/or did. all souls exists. skull and bones exists. the illuminati existed, and the catholic church stamped it out. masonic lodges were fundamental in both the french and american revolutions. the john birch society existed, too. so, these are not imaginary constructs - they are actual existing bodies, and the people that meet in them and/or advanced through them have been shaped by their goals and aspirations. this is all empirical, and demonstrated easily enough.
the next thing that you need to do is tie the aims of the organizations to the individuals you suspect of working for them. and, with that we can get to the point that i want to make about what actual forces are extant today, and what exactly the conflict points are.
for all the talk amongst conspiracy theorists about the "nwo", it is actually the primary conflict point. on the left, for all it's historical ills, you have the cliveden set - the all souls group, the rhodes scholars. this group has had dominance in the liberal party of canada for decades, and recently exerted itself in the united states through the presidency of bill clinton. the left, in context, is the aristocracy; odd, but it's the alliance, as it is. when i spoke of a deep state fear of a hillary clinton presidency, a part of it was allowing the rhodes clique back into power, out of fear of a collapse in sovereignty. the rhodes clique does in fact believe in world government, with a central administration in the united nations.
on the flip side of this is the right, the bourgeoisie, as represented by the john birch society, and also by the skull and bones clique of american industrialist powers. this side of the power elite actually rejects world governance, in favour of an american-dominated world, centered in washington. since the defeat of al gore in 2000, this side of the power elite has had almost total control over american politics. both john kerry and barack obama are actually on this side of the power elite, and despite their fears, hillary clinton would prefer this side as well - a point she went to great lengths to demonstrate, but could not do so.
so, who is this mayor?
i don't know.
but, if you want to know what he'll be like, the truth is that clinton is probably the better comparison than obama.
at
20:08
i haven't posted anything exactly like this in this space, and the reason is that it hasn't been entirely relevant. but, it's a thing that shows up from time to time, both in the united states and in canada - is there actually a power elite, who are they and what do they want?
you can't dismiss the issue out of hand; it's an empirical question, and an answer must be arrived at through the proper methods. the important thing is that you do use the right methods and be extra careful about documentation, because you're going to get piled on from every direction if you walk down this path - which is both proof of the depth of the conspiracy and of the deficit of conspiratorial logic.
there is also a difficulty inherent in the bias that exists in the research, as so much of it comes from the loony fringes on the right. the standard conspiracy theory - at least from the msm's perspective - is that the world is run by shadowy communist groups trying to take away your free market. i've never been able to take this analysis past the smell test; it strikes me as absurd on it's face, as the left represents the exploited by definition. you have to have a fundamental starting point in ignorance to even begin to take this hypothesis seriously. as it is, the issue has actually been explored in some detail from the right by a hoover institute academic named antony sutton, who examined the evidence very carefully and rather came to the opposite conclusion - that what we called "communism" in the mid 20th century was actually created by western capital as a means to monopolize eastern markets.
so, it is actually true that big american companies like ford and exxon (standard oil) signed very large contracts with communist regimes - we can prove this very clearly, these contracts happened, the money changed hands and etc. the typical right-wing conspiracy theory takes these contracts (and general cooperation) as evidence of collusion and deduces that the american elite are secretly a bunch of sickle-flag waving communists. but, sutton's academic analysis corrected this hypothesis, in rather clearly showing that the interest of these american industrialists was merely to further their own interests. sutton, a right-libertarian, may have actually predicted the neo-keynesian consensus in pointing out that no corporation wants a free market, if they can have a monopoly. so, when these companies had the opportunity to ensure unchallenged access to a market as large as eastern europe, china or even nazi germany, of course they jumped all over it. a key aspect of sutton's research was demonstrating that capital doesn't really have an ideological preference in ensuring monopoly access, either - it's just as happy to work with the despotic monarchy in saudi arabia, or the fascist regimes in spain or germany, as it is with the so-called communists in russia or china.
sutton was widely read in his time, too. brzezinski famously called him a "jerk".
and, he was even able to take the thing a step forward in demonstrating that these capitalists didn't just seek to monopolize these markets by cutting deals with the despots there, but would actually help them create the infrastructure necessary to create the markets by underwriting them through affiliated bank loans. it would have been nearly impossible for stalin or mao to get access to that kind of capital without cutting that kind of deal. is that communism? or does it sound more like typical capitalism?
sutton concludes that these industrialists were something that he called vulgar marxists, which means people that used marxist theory as a tool to achieve their own self-interest in a capitalist economy. so, in his view, marxism becomes just another tactic to advance one's own interests on the market. i do not know if he ever saw himself in the mirror; i do not know if he ever realize that the vulgar marxist was actually him, as his analysis really could have been written by anybody on the left - zinn, chomsky, bakunin or even marx himself.
so, we can see that when an actual academic on the right tried to rigorously demonstrate the truth of his right-wing conspiracy theories, he just ended up paraphrasing marx. funny, that.
and, is marxist history itself a conspiracy theory? i think it's hard to make the argument otherwise, the question is whether there's any evidence to uphold it or not. marxism does in truth argue that there is a conspiracy of capital seeking to steal surplus value from the proletariat, and willing to stop at nothing in order to do it. when you get deep into these theories, it eventually becomes obvious that there's really a fine line here between marxist theory and conspiracy theory, and that you need to be very careful in being rigorous about it.
you can't dismiss the issue out of hand; it's an empirical question, and an answer must be arrived at through the proper methods. the important thing is that you do use the right methods and be extra careful about documentation, because you're going to get piled on from every direction if you walk down this path - which is both proof of the depth of the conspiracy and of the deficit of conspiratorial logic.
there is also a difficulty inherent in the bias that exists in the research, as so much of it comes from the loony fringes on the right. the standard conspiracy theory - at least from the msm's perspective - is that the world is run by shadowy communist groups trying to take away your free market. i've never been able to take this analysis past the smell test; it strikes me as absurd on it's face, as the left represents the exploited by definition. you have to have a fundamental starting point in ignorance to even begin to take this hypothesis seriously. as it is, the issue has actually been explored in some detail from the right by a hoover institute academic named antony sutton, who examined the evidence very carefully and rather came to the opposite conclusion - that what we called "communism" in the mid 20th century was actually created by western capital as a means to monopolize eastern markets.
so, it is actually true that big american companies like ford and exxon (standard oil) signed very large contracts with communist regimes - we can prove this very clearly, these contracts happened, the money changed hands and etc. the typical right-wing conspiracy theory takes these contracts (and general cooperation) as evidence of collusion and deduces that the american elite are secretly a bunch of sickle-flag waving communists. but, sutton's academic analysis corrected this hypothesis, in rather clearly showing that the interest of these american industrialists was merely to further their own interests. sutton, a right-libertarian, may have actually predicted the neo-keynesian consensus in pointing out that no corporation wants a free market, if they can have a monopoly. so, when these companies had the opportunity to ensure unchallenged access to a market as large as eastern europe, china or even nazi germany, of course they jumped all over it. a key aspect of sutton's research was demonstrating that capital doesn't really have an ideological preference in ensuring monopoly access, either - it's just as happy to work with the despotic monarchy in saudi arabia, or the fascist regimes in spain or germany, as it is with the so-called communists in russia or china.
sutton was widely read in his time, too. brzezinski famously called him a "jerk".
and, he was even able to take the thing a step forward in demonstrating that these capitalists didn't just seek to monopolize these markets by cutting deals with the despots there, but would actually help them create the infrastructure necessary to create the markets by underwriting them through affiliated bank loans. it would have been nearly impossible for stalin or mao to get access to that kind of capital without cutting that kind of deal. is that communism? or does it sound more like typical capitalism?
sutton concludes that these industrialists were something that he called vulgar marxists, which means people that used marxist theory as a tool to achieve their own self-interest in a capitalist economy. so, in his view, marxism becomes just another tactic to advance one's own interests on the market. i do not know if he ever saw himself in the mirror; i do not know if he ever realize that the vulgar marxist was actually him, as his analysis really could have been written by anybody on the left - zinn, chomsky, bakunin or even marx himself.
so, we can see that when an actual academic on the right tried to rigorously demonstrate the truth of his right-wing conspiracy theories, he just ended up paraphrasing marx. funny, that.
and, is marxist history itself a conspiracy theory? i think it's hard to make the argument otherwise, the question is whether there's any evidence to uphold it or not. marxism does in truth argue that there is a conspiracy of capital seeking to steal surplus value from the proletariat, and willing to stop at nothing in order to do it. when you get deep into these theories, it eventually becomes obvious that there's really a fine line here between marxist theory and conspiracy theory, and that you need to be very careful in being rigorous about it.
at
19:36
so, what is a rhodes scholarship, anyways?
stated in as clinical terms as possible, it is a scholarship program set up by the british imperialist cecil rhodes, who is known to history for being central to the establishment of the racist dictatorship in south africa. he was primarily in charge of mining diamonds, which meant sending slaves into the mines to get the product and then selling it to the english-speaking parts of the empire at ridiculous profits.
so, the most immediate thing that being a rhodes scholar means is that you went to school on apartheid money - that your schooling was paid for by an institution that existed solely to perpetuate a particularly brutal and racist form of slavery. i hope that takes the gloss off a little.
bill clinton was a rhodes scholar.
but, there are some more shady components to the program that have been explored in depth by writers like carroll quigley, and particularly in his text the anglo-american establishment. i'll remind you that dr. quigley was a very legitimate academic that happened to have some insider contacts with these people, and found it necessary to document it for the historical record; his writing is genuine on both the level that he was a respected academic and on the level that he was a primary source. this is not some kooky guy in his mom's basement, this is legit stuff.
according to quigley, and others before him, the rhodes scholarship program was actually the recruitment arm of a kind of secret society centered at all souls college in london that was intended to advance the interests of rhodesian imperialism. that is, rhodes left a large amount of money to this program for the specific intent of ensuring that his political project - not just imperialism, but specifically apartheid - would carry on past his death. while the rhodes scholarship program does have some means-testing, it is not a program that is intended to alleviate inequality. they're solely looking for new blood to advance their own agenda.
while it is fair game to tie recent participants to the legacy of apartheid, it would be disingenuous to suggest that being a rhodes scholar today means you support apartheid. a more legitimate observation is pointing out that a candidate running for office with a history in the program is a front for a very powerful organization that is actually not american-centric; this is an organization dedicated to the continuation of british imperialism, and that sees america as a part of the commonwealth.
so, who is mayor pete, anyways? i don't know, but i know that when somebody says "i'm a rhodes scholar", what that means is something like "i work directly for the illuminati.". legit.
now, is it impressive, anyways? i don't think that merely attending an elite institution is that exciting, especially given the importance of money in the process. the scholarship program picked him because they thought he had potential for their cause, rather than due to excitement over his pure intellect. if somebody comes to me and says "i'm faculty at an elite institution", that is a more qualifying claim, but this particular person seems to have gone right back to nowhere, indiana where he came from rather than stay at the institution and do any kind of meaningful academic work. his credentials are really not as impressive as his campaign is presenting them as; i might rather point to cory booker or elizabeth warren as being more impressive, in that way.
but, if you feel like there's something guiding this, you're right. there is. your intuition is correct.
stated in as clinical terms as possible, it is a scholarship program set up by the british imperialist cecil rhodes, who is known to history for being central to the establishment of the racist dictatorship in south africa. he was primarily in charge of mining diamonds, which meant sending slaves into the mines to get the product and then selling it to the english-speaking parts of the empire at ridiculous profits.
so, the most immediate thing that being a rhodes scholar means is that you went to school on apartheid money - that your schooling was paid for by an institution that existed solely to perpetuate a particularly brutal and racist form of slavery. i hope that takes the gloss off a little.
bill clinton was a rhodes scholar.
but, there are some more shady components to the program that have been explored in depth by writers like carroll quigley, and particularly in his text the anglo-american establishment. i'll remind you that dr. quigley was a very legitimate academic that happened to have some insider contacts with these people, and found it necessary to document it for the historical record; his writing is genuine on both the level that he was a respected academic and on the level that he was a primary source. this is not some kooky guy in his mom's basement, this is legit stuff.
according to quigley, and others before him, the rhodes scholarship program was actually the recruitment arm of a kind of secret society centered at all souls college in london that was intended to advance the interests of rhodesian imperialism. that is, rhodes left a large amount of money to this program for the specific intent of ensuring that his political project - not just imperialism, but specifically apartheid - would carry on past his death. while the rhodes scholarship program does have some means-testing, it is not a program that is intended to alleviate inequality. they're solely looking for new blood to advance their own agenda.
while it is fair game to tie recent participants to the legacy of apartheid, it would be disingenuous to suggest that being a rhodes scholar today means you support apartheid. a more legitimate observation is pointing out that a candidate running for office with a history in the program is a front for a very powerful organization that is actually not american-centric; this is an organization dedicated to the continuation of british imperialism, and that sees america as a part of the commonwealth.
so, who is mayor pete, anyways? i don't know, but i know that when somebody says "i'm a rhodes scholar", what that means is something like "i work directly for the illuminati.". legit.
now, is it impressive, anyways? i don't think that merely attending an elite institution is that exciting, especially given the importance of money in the process. the scholarship program picked him because they thought he had potential for their cause, rather than due to excitement over his pure intellect. if somebody comes to me and says "i'm faculty at an elite institution", that is a more qualifying claim, but this particular person seems to have gone right back to nowhere, indiana where he came from rather than stay at the institution and do any kind of meaningful academic work. his credentials are really not as impressive as his campaign is presenting them as; i might rather point to cory booker or elizabeth warren as being more impressive, in that way.
but, if you feel like there's something guiding this, you're right. there is. your intuition is correct.
at
17:48
the la dispute show is a special case because the local option is in pontiac, which is pretty much as far as i can go, locally; now that i have the tickets, i have to actually argue i'd rather bus to toronto, anyways. i'm going to be on the bus for around 8 hours; i would have been on the bus for around 3 hours, anyways. the cost is the same, roughly. and, i suspect i'll be happy to have a warm space with wifi. that logic might alter over time, but i might rather go to toronto than ann arbor, for example. it depends on the time of the year....
but, it seems insane to spend $70 on bus tickets and an eight hour ride if the alternative is in downtown detroit.
then, there's the question of shows that aren't happening in detroit at all, of which i've found two so far - an electronic jazz artist named anomie and the now infamous efrim menuck. i'll have to see what he's been up to; he's due for something profound. and, i may end up going to hamilton.
the anomie show is monday night, thoug, meaning i'm paying exorbitant bus prices.
what about this?
https://www.kijiji.ca/b-rideshare-carpool/ontario/windsor-to-toronto/k0c5l9004
well, it's still not cheap. but, if i can pare it down to $20-30, total, and plan it so i'm not waiting for hours, i can write that off as reasonable - so long as it's infrequent.
i don't expect to get to the show on sunday, but that might be the more reasonable approach, long tern, especially if i'm hitting last call at 4 am, which is legal in toronto, now. if i have to wait until 6, it's just enough time for breakfast...
i don't want to give off the wrong impression: this is clearly going to be infrequent. but, i actually probably should have thought of this earlier. alas.
but, it seems insane to spend $70 on bus tickets and an eight hour ride if the alternative is in downtown detroit.
then, there's the question of shows that aren't happening in detroit at all, of which i've found two so far - an electronic jazz artist named anomie and the now infamous efrim menuck. i'll have to see what he's been up to; he's due for something profound. and, i may end up going to hamilton.
the anomie show is monday night, thoug, meaning i'm paying exorbitant bus prices.
what about this?
https://www.kijiji.ca/b-rideshare-carpool/ontario/windsor-to-toronto/k0c5l9004
well, it's still not cheap. but, if i can pare it down to $20-30, total, and plan it so i'm not waiting for hours, i can write that off as reasonable - so long as it's infrequent.
i don't expect to get to the show on sunday, but that might be the more reasonable approach, long tern, especially if i'm hitting last call at 4 am, which is legal in toronto, now. if i have to wait until 6, it's just enough time for breakfast...
i don't want to give off the wrong impression: this is clearly going to be infrequent. but, i actually probably should have thought of this earlier. alas.
at
04:45
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)