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)