The Grand Plan ...

fncceo

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2016
42,673
35,269
3,615
There is a popular view that a grand plan exists, a secret plan, known only to a few (or possibly hundreds of thousands) complicit conspirators to destroy society and rebuild it in some other way.

It has been called by many names, The Illuminati, Freemasons, The International Jewish Banking Conspiracy, and many more. Most recently, the term "Globalists" is frequently used.

We see world events and we attribute those events to some sort of master plan. This is natural. Humans (and many animals) have a biological imperative to see meaningful connections between unrelated things. It's called Apophenia.

It caused early 20th Century scientists to "see" canals on Mars. It causes religious zealots to "see" the face of a deity in a piece of toast.

We're told that members of government, collectively known as "Deep State" are planning to destroy the government and society and replace it with "something" ... a glorious worker's paradise, a 1984-style fascist dystopia, a paleolithic commune society ... whatever.

We believe that we alone can't fight the Deep State. We need a "great leader" to do it for us. We become willing to believe that, if only the "right man (or woman)" were in charge, they could make Deep State go away and save us all for a fate worse than.

But ... there is always a but ... is a grand conspiracy or Deep State or infiltration of alien lizard men necessary to explain when things go disastrously wrong? Or, are there other, more prosaic reasons that if we were forced to admit, would reveal fundamental flaws in our characters as humans?

Does the government have to work in a concerted manner to bollocks up the country? Or, can a government made up of individual incompetents and self-aggrandizers do it all on their own, without a plan?

For example, the Post Office, the DMV, City Hall, or any place where citizens interface with the wheels and cogs of government are inefficient, incompetent, soul-sucking places that no one goes willingly, only when the need is great. They didn’t recently become like this, they have ALWAYS been like this.

Who built those monuments to ineffectualism? The simple answer is, We did. We elect the people who fund those agencies, who appoint their leaders, who hire their workers. We continue to elect them based on the party they claim to support, the things they promise to give us, or the way they wear their hair.

Everyone wants something from government. We are a country of ever-expanding identity groups, all believing that we are deserving of something we believe other groups get but we don't, or things we deserve that other groups don't.

We will elect the person who best panders to our identity. A successful politician is one who can pander to multiple groups at once -- creating unity in the chaos. The most successful politician is the one who can pander to groups of extreme opposite ideologies and convince them to come together to victimize another group.

If you want change, if you want to destroy the "Deep State" stop voting for panderers, dividers, or uniters.

Vote for a person who believes we can be better than we are -- all of us.
 
Or, just maybe, we could recognize that the monopoly on the use of physical force -the kind of force that kills people- will always attract to it deranged sociopaths....After which the notion of having a State becomes laughable.

a32cc62e7d896ec15dfebdf95f99998f--robert-richard-easily-offended.jpg
 
Every human is capable of violence (even Gandhi --- he used to beat his wife) if he or she is A) sufficiently provoked (the amount of provocation required varies from person to person) and B) they are reasonably sure they can get away with it.

"Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it."

-- Russell ("Stripes")


The problem with state sponsored violence is ... it is sanctioned by most of the citizens of the state and they are (mostly) absolutely sure they can get away with it.

I don't see a lot of people working for the state because they want to inflict violence on others, I see them wanting to get paid to do a job without having to bother with having any meaningful metrics on how well, or poorly, they do that job.
 
Every human is capable of violence (even Gandhi --- he used to beat his wife) if he or she is A) sufficiently provoked (the amount of provocation required varies from person to person) and B) they are reasonably sure they can get away with it.

"Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it."

-- Russell ("Stripes")


The problem with state sponsored violence is ... it is sanctioned by most of the citizens of the state and they are (mostly) absolutely sure they can get away with it.

I don't see a lot of people working for the state because they want to inflict violence on others, I see them wanting to get paid to do a job without having to bother with having any meaningful metrics on how well, or poorly, they do that job.



Yes, and look how easy it is to get them to go along with those WHO DO wish to do evil.
 
An Objectivist would describe government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws"; thus, government is both legitimate and critically important in order to protect individual rights.

That being said, without a common definition of what constitute objective control, we are left with a system that will arbitrarily use force to enforce a status quo or suppress anything it perceives as a threat.
 
Yes, and look how easy it is to get them to go along with those WHO DO wish to do evil.

Of course it's easy ... we want to believe that the motives of those we elect are pure and motivated only by altruism and a love of their fellow man (no matter how many women and children they have to kill to show that love).

We also want to believe that those we vote against are motivated only by malice, hate, greed, and a desire to destroy everything we hold dear.
 
An Objectivist would describe government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws"; thus, government is both legitimate and critically important in order to protect individual rights.

That being said, without a common definition of what constitute objective control, we are left with a system that will arbitrarily use force to enforce a status quo or suppress anything it perceives as a threat.



Correct. That is the nature of government. The Founders tried like hell to write a document that would keep the government under control for as long as possible...

But they also knew that ultimately the corruption would win out, and that is why they codified the 2nd Amendment.

They understood that if the ballot box is stolen, the only remedy is the cartridge box.

I hope we don't need to go there.

I truly do.
 
Of course it's easy ... we want to believe that the motives of those we elect are pure and motivated only by altruism and a love of their fellow man (no matter how many women and children they have to kill to show that love).

We also want to believe that those we vote against are motivated only by malice, hate, greed, and a desire to destroy everything we hold dear.



No, I am talking about the bureaucrats. The German government, during the third reich was a classic example of the banality of evil writ large.

The Party could do no wrong.

The fbi is the modern day iteration of the Sicherheistdienst. Heydrich would be proud of wray and his minions.
 
Correct. That is the nature of government. The Founders tried like hell to write a document that would keep the government under control for as long as possible...

But they also knew that ultimately the corruption would win out, and that is why they codified the 2nd Amendment.

They understood that if the ballot box is stolen, the only remedy is the cartridge box.

I hope we don't need to go there.

I truly do.

They say, be careful what you wish for. I'm not sure a cartridge box solution would result in the sort of society to which you might aspire. Lincoln said, "The ballot is stronger than the bullet". Mao Zedung said the opposite. Both were very capable of using the bullet when the ballot didn't go their way.

The problem with ripping down the outhouse is ... it's really easy. The hard part is installing new plumbing.

An armed revolution while we still adhere to the belief that it's "us vs them" will only result in the same mess with someone else (temporarily) in charge.

I submit that any real change has to come by a fundamental change in ourselves.
 
No, I am talking about the bureaucrats. The German government, during the third reich was a classic example of the banality of evil writ large.

The Party could do no wrong.

The fbi is the modern day iteration of the Sicherheistdienst. Heydrich would be proud of wray and his minions.
The same thing can be said of the flag wavers in Murca at the same time....The Democrat Party and FDR could do no wrong.

F.A. Hayek wrote an entire treatise on the subject, while it was happening in real time.

But you already knew that, didn't ya?

 
The same thing can be said of the flag wavers in Murca at the same time....The Democrat Party and FDR could do no wrong.

F.A Hayek wrote an entire treatise on the subject, while it was happening in real time.

But you already knew that, didn't ya?


Love that book ... need to re-read it.
 
They say, be careful what you wish for. I'm not sure a cartridge box solution would result in the sort of society to which you might aspire. Lincoln said, "The ballot is stronger than the bullet". Mao Zedung said the opposite. Both were very capable of using the bullet when the ballot didn't go their way.

The problem with ripping down the outhouse is ... it's really easy. The hard part is installing new plumbing.

An armed revolution while we still adhere to the belief that it's "us vs them" will only result in the same mess with someone else (temporarily) in charge.

I submit that any real change has to come by a fundamental change in ourselves.



I don't want a civil war. No sane person does. But if they are able to steal elections, the power to change government peacefully, then they are on the road to dictatorship.

That ends only one way.
 
Skip straight to chapter 10....'splains everything.

Now you tell me ... last time I read it, I slogged through the whole thing!

I read Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" a few times over the years ... and the only part I can successfully repeat is the Pencil Analogy of market forces.
 
The same thing can be said of the flag wavers in Murca at the same time....The Democrat Party and FDR could do no wrong.

F.A. Hayek wrote an entire treatise on the subject, while it was happening in real time.

But you already knew that, didn't ya?




Yup. Add to that The Nazi Seizure of Power by William Sheridan Allen and you have the blueprint being followed right now.
 
I don't want a civil war. No sane person does. But if they are able to steal elections, the power to change government peacefully, then they are on the road to dictatorship.

That ends only one way.

Yes, dictatorships and democracies all tend to fail ... in equal measures.
 
Yes, dictatorships and democracies all tend to fail ... in equal measures.


Yup. Democracies are ultimately dictatorships. That's why the Founders built a Republic.
 
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship"

-- Alexander Fraser Tytler

Sound familiar?

P.S. He made that statement BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was signed.
 
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship"

-- Alexander Fraser Tytler

Sound familiar?


Indeed. Athens famously launched an invasion against Syracuse, another Republic, a deed that earlier Athens had said they would never do, all because the Mob were whipped into a frenzy by a swine who wanted to loot Syracuse.

That is what we are living through now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top