Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Jake, I see your points.
First, it's not necessary to postulate a conspiracy, when practically every element in a system bound by the visual limits of predator culture has the same apparent interest in avoiding the whole subject.
They may come to it from a different direction, but the result's the same.

Look what's happening in the media with regards to Wisconsin, and you'll see what could be taken for a grand media conspiracy to suppress the truth about popular anger, and a precarious social situation. Nope. Mostly a perceived commonality of interests, with a bit of kiss-ass subservience.
Actually, I think the MSM is about to render themselves irrelevant.
"--you can't keep the people who actually manage it completely in the dark about your objectives"
Again, you imply action in concert.
No conspiracy- just self preservation and cowardice.
As for the right, their own desire to scoop sand over their ears will do the trick just fine.
Only a brave man or a fool would step out with this truth.
It may be true that the "serious people" aren't talking about this publicly. I dunno- I donn't get their newsletter.
Perhaps that's why we still speak of them as serious people.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 08:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now that's a lot more like it. I did find your diary implied deliberate, concerted action - down to dominance scenario models and (OK,comical) Powerpoint presentations of The Truth.

I don't think they know, because it's not in their daily interest as money-makers, or policy wonks, or elected representatives, to be aware. Their interest commands that they wear blinkers and forget about the fact.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 09:04:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah.
I'm somewhat conflicted about that, I admit. Note the question mark in the title.
Glad something finally clicks for you, afew. I guess.
But it's easy to make the other case, with equal plausibility.

Ideas are like editors are like dogs. They have to circle it a few times, then piss on it before they buy it. (Thanks, Heinlein. Rot your hard little heart) Once it's their own idea, then they will defend it.
Given their own likely modeling, and the endless murmurs of support of top researchers growing to a solid consensus drone-
At some point, Wickwit makes the transition from "Them" to "one of ours". Some time long before he ever presents to the prez.

We seem incapable of crediting anyone in our vast throng of the disapproved with the wit to tell a hawk from a handsaw. They all tend to resemble little automata marching to the tune of whatever program we credit to their measly intellectual account. That's a mistake that stymies our ability to project usefully.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither witless nor automata, just keeping within the lines laid down by their own interests - which are sufficient to explain elite behaviour without the need for a future collapse scenario.

As you say, it can be argued either way. But I'll stick with my favourite version of the (h/t Occam) razor: never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by mediocrity.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series