February 8, 2013

This reads like White House Insider…

…and it appears to extrapolate out from Cloward-Piven (what gives it its plausibility, from my perspective, is the section on “cyber-warriors for Obama,” which seems to play into some of our own experiences here; having said that, I’m aware that confirmation bias is one way to grab people and get them invested in the conspiracy theory, so that portion of the article is also what makes me most suspicious of its veracity).

So what I’d like to see happen is this:  read the piece (and it’s linked antecedent) and abide, for the moment, the willing suspension of disbelief.  How does what is described here play out, who benefits, and most importantly, how do they benefit?

Consider this a thought experiment.

It seems to me that one of the things about such conspiracy plots that makes intelligent and naturally skeptical people most likely to dismiss them is that they try to suss out from such plots what it is the (supposed) perpetrators hope to gain — then, having determined the likelihood of that gain, they reason backwards in an effort to determine the plan’s plausibility.  That is, is the risk worth the reward, and if not, is it plausible that such a wide-ranging plan would take such a low-percentage risk?

It’s natural to think this way.

But then it occurs to me:  such thinking on the part of skeptics, myself included, almost takes for granted that those who would have the power and reach to launch such a wide-ranging conspiracy must, simultaneously, also must of necessity have either the intelligence and the on-the-ground capabilities to pull it off on a wide scale.

And this isn’t necessarily so:  if the progressive left, using the New Left models for social upheaval and the fundamental transformation of the country — overwhelm the system from within; stoke class envy; play to racial, ethnic, and gender differences; debase the currency; unleash hyperinflation to rob everyone of their (largely already imaginary) collected wealth — really were actively, from the highest levels of our government, orchestrating a campaign to consolidate wealth and power and create a permanent subject class, it doesn’t follow that their plans would have to work for them to attempt them.  This is, after all, the left we’re talking about — and their historical strength has always been in getting to that societal point where they are able to then implement their Utopian plans, only to have them repeatedly fail. 

So all we need believe is that they believe that such a plan could work, and that they could control the outcome based on the kind of war-gaming against the American people described in the article.  Because if that is the case, it answers those nagging questions that keep skeptics skeptical.  To wit, because as skeptics we can’t conceive of how this ultimately benefits the New Left (basing that on our own ideas of how things would likely play out) we conclude that they, too, must see the flaws inherent to such an improbable and wide-ranging plan to dismantle the civil society.

Which may be giving them too much credit. And because we do so, we remain dogged skeptics.

So what I’m wondering is, if we don’t give them the credit of having carefully planned an outcome — that is,  if we conceive of them more as social anarchists than practical New Left planners (and this is despite whatever they might think of themselves) — does that make any of this, from the likelihood of an orchestrated Cloward-Piven attack on the system, to the devaluing of the currency, to the unsustainable promises of a governmental safety-net that, when it inevitably fails, leads to widespread rioting, chaos, and factionalization — more probable and more easily conceivable as something that is being actively attempted?

I dunno.  I just thought it was worth pondering.

But that’s probably because I was up until 5:45 dealing with a cranky baby, and my mind is operating on fumes.  Which tends to push me into esoteric mode.  YMMV — and I suppose the response this post gets will give me some idea about whether or not any of this interests you.

Because honestly, I’m finding it hard to tell if it totally fascinates me, or if it is a colossal waste of my time, keeping in mind the old axiom that one shouldn’t attribute to malice what is more likely attributable to stupidity.

And maybe this is all just an elaborate way for me to justify buying for myself a new car that costs more than I’d really like to pay.

(h/t Dennis D)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:28am
11 comments | Trackback

Comments (11)

  1. Sometimes I think, you know, I say to myself, you really should just read John Dewey instead of reading about John Dewey, as if maybe there’s something in Dewey’s works that would help explain away the looniness of these democratical visions. And that Dewey is surely out there, beckoning, as for instance in Kesler’s remark that Dewey’s granddaughter was ObaZma’s mother’s PhD. advisor — and says he, you can’t make this stuff up funnily enough to compete with what has just happened.

    But then, resisting, I don’t. If only because it more strongly appears that life is too short, and for my part growing much much shorter, and I can’t seem to believe I’d be better off reading non-sense than rereading something more beautiful, say, or rewarding. But there’s the thing about what isn’t done. One cannot know what the ‘isn’t done’ is.

  2. I think you make a good point. I know I tend to run everything through my own internal filters to judge whether it makes sense, and everything the left does is found wanting.

    We’re dealing with people who are willing to take a huge leap of faith to bridge the gap between what they do and the outcome they expect (which itself is quite fuzzy). They know what they’re doing must lead to their desired ends, which are cloudy ideas of peace, love, harmony, and equality of outcome. I doubt they expect collapse and/or rioting, though, because they mean well, and if you mean well, then nothing bad will happen, and if it does, it’s someone else’s fault.

  3. I absolutely think think it’s plausible. I’m convinced that a completely-centralized, all-powerful government, and a completely disempowered populace, are something “they” have been working on for decades. I don’t think it’s far-fetched at all. (I do think it’s a hoot that they might be depending on DHS to bring something useful to the table; DHS was cobbled together with all the fedgov employees that other agencies had wanted to get rid of, but couldn’t because of federal hiring/firing restrictions. The dregs of fedgov – how low is *that*??)

    And their plan just might work in urban areas. It seem to already be working there. Urban voters seem to be increasingly happy to follow each other into the abattoir.

    That said… the hubris of the Cloward-Piven devotees just might be their undoing. Their overreach with the whole 2nd amendment issue is waking up and mobilizing a *lot* of people who were assumed to be safely and permanently asleep. The teaparties refuse to die, and in fact – because paranoia about government, all the sudden, doesn’t seem to be so craaaazy anymore – look to be strengthening at the state and local levels. States themselves are waking up – slowly – and starting to strengthen themselves against fedgov overreach, with nullification legislation on multiple issues starting to make its way through a multiplicity of states. And if one looks at a 2012 county-by-county voting map, one can see that fedgov is going to have a hard row to hoe subduing vast swathes of a red America that’s starting to find its hind legs and stand on them.

    So… no. Not hard to believe, at all. Interesting times, interesting times.

  4. And, more to the point of currency collapse mentioned in the linked article:

    “A growing number of states are seeking shiny new currencies made of silver and gold.

    Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. Just three years ago, only three states had similar proposals in place. ”

    (from one year ago)

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/index.htm

  5. I would just like to remind people that tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists posit that the secret cabal has been in place for decades or centuries, pulling strings here and there, and that only Those In The Know can see that the black-swan events are really the machinations of the secret cabal.

    It is a much different thing to posit that People Are Up To Something, especially when those people have been Up To Something before and are on video explaining what they Intend To Be Up To.

    Alex Jones is a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist.

    Winston Churchill was not.

  6. Pingback: Anonymous

  7. I have been having a feeling of Déjà vu something awful for the past month or so. I haven’t puzzled out what it is, yet. I’m still waiting for all the tumblers to click on this one.

    And conspiracy? ZOG, duh. Everyone knows that.

  8. It is not possible to overestimate the stupidity of the hard left. The new crop are the heirs to Bill Ayers, who thought a little purge of some 25 million non-complying citizens would cement the utopia in place. There is nothing at play here other than abject ignorance welded to an undaunted fanaticism.

  9. Isn’t that Die Hard 4?

    I file it under “used to be implausible, now plausible, probably was plausible all along, still needs proof.”

    I have noticed a certain about of blue-faced clenching on the left over the whole “enough guns sold in two months to arm the Chinese and Indian Armies” thing. Then again, they never do seem to learn, do they… same thing happened in 94.

  10. I think what messes up skeptics is the shear complexity and clear goal they imagine the plan must have. What you have to imagine is a plan of simple inevitability. It’s an opportunistic long game, the important goal is the next one, the journey IS the destination.

  11. the journey IS the destination.

    that is why you attack the proggtards on the fed, state, local level. but mostly fed gov’t like eliminating funding for most of the fed gov’t agencies. these agencies are “held” by the proggtards. the proggtards are “domestic enemies”

Leave a Reply