When I was growing up I got
really into the "grand" global conspiracy. I went to see David Icke
speak with my brother in a relatively small room in Stoke on Trent around 2002.
There were only maybe a couple hundred people in the audience.
Later on, around 2007, I got
really into economics and libertarianism. I began to think a less about the
"global" conspiracy. Suddenly most of what I saw going on in society
could be explained by economic incentives.
For one thing, people like free
stuff, of course they are going to vote it for themselves
whenever they can. They don't typically see this as looting the commonweal,
living at the expense of their neighbour, but "fair" in light of the
challenges they face in life. Society has never told public sector workers, for
example, that this is shameful, all is fair under democracy. A vote is a vote
and a policy is a policy.
As a corollary, those individuals
that make up government want power - even if it is power to "do good"
according to their own values. One way the government can get power,
while garnering the support of the populace, is to bribe people with handouts.
People who receive benefits are from the state are likely to be supporters of
the state. All the public servants, school teachers, university professors,
campaign contributors, not to mention the politicians themselves, are basically
bought off with public funds to be tacit allies of government. In addition to
this, they keep an underclass on welfare, who can always be relied upon to
support the institution of government out of fear of starvation.
When our societies were not very
affluent, only a small percentage of people's income could be appropriated in
taxes because, say, a "0% reduction in the average person's living
standards would have been huge. As we have grown richer, the total tax
many people pay is far in excess of half of their income. This allows the
government to have a far greater number of people than ever before on its
payrolls to protest tax increases, however, it does not cause the tax-payer
themselves to starve. In addition to this, they believe they are at least in
receipt of some services that have come to be seen as impossible to
provide without government by the great majority of people, including
roads, hospitals and schools. By this final act, the support of even the net
tax-contributors are won over to the idea of government, and all of this is
explainable merely by the incentives of the system itself. This is what you
could more or less expect to happen in an affluent
democracy.
It's power being solidified, it's
not difficult for the corporations, who deal with huge sums of money, to buy
the government. In fact they are incentivised to do
so. As soon as a corporation gains a greater return on their investment by
lobbying the government than they do from serving their customer, that is what
they are going to do. This completes the circle.
Organisations like WHO, IMF,
World Bank and CDC work in the interests of the corporations, but people think they
are "government" agencies; which they take to mean working in the
public interest.
Now, this doesn't mean I don't
believe individual conspiracies take place. For example, murder of Jeffrey
Epstein. Other conspiracies such as The Lavon Affair or Operation Gladio are
even freely admitted to have occurred. It just means that I don't
necessarily think these need to be centrally orchestrated in smoky rooms by the
same cabal of powermongers.
The term conspiracy theory,
itself, is simply used to dismiss claims out of hand and relieve people of the
need for further investigation. The term "conspiracy theorist" is
synonymous with "nut," and it is popular to psychologize people who
believe in conspiracies as having some strange motive to find patterns where
there are none. However, someone can have psychological tendencies which drive
them towards a position - and that position can still be true! One of the
appeals of the "conspiracy theorists" in the pre-YouTube world was
exactly that they would bring context to a media landscape devoid of it, where
the media would portray complex events as a snapshot in time. For example,
propagandizing the populace with the claim that, "Saddam Hussein gassed
the Kurds," without showing either of the videos of Donald Rumsfeld, then
the defense secretary, meeting with Hussein in the 80s to sell him weapons.
Like many, recent events
regarding the Global Pandemic (or "Globalist Plandemic" to conspiracy
theorists), like many, have really made me think again of the global conspiracy
again.
A global conspiracy, of course,
could exist, and by its very nature of being secret and covert we would not
even know about it.
My question though, remains, what
is actually the scarier thought?
If there are just a handful of
evil men who are orchestrating world event, up to no good, then it is
relatively easy to depose them.
If it is not a centrally planned
conspiracy then the world becomes far harder to fix. You have a nice neighbour,
but he doesn't believe you should be able to operate a hair salon without a
licence. Your drinking buddies want to take your guns. Your churchmates don't
think gays should be allowed to get married. Another friend says Soviet Russia
wasn't real communism and real communism has never been tried. All the people at
your local theatre group support you being taxed to pay for allopathic medical
treatments that you disagree with, taking money from you to pay big pharma.
Atheists want Christians to pay for abortions. Meat eaters want vegans to pay
for subsidies to dairy farmers.
In other words - control is not
exerted upon you vertically, from above, but horizontally, by the very people
around you, whom you love.
No comments:
Post a Comment