« "Do it yourself" realities in the policy world | Main | Open Thread - 12 December 2015 »

12 December 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter J A Wright,

Your commentators generally seem to think that we need not look for conspiracies to explain the disasters we are witnessing. That it's muddle rather than malice that accounts for them.

I couldn't agree more. I believe the reason for the muddle is that there is a vacuum of power at the top of American political and administrative structures. The forces acting on the politicians are those exerted by the various financial or commercial interest groups. These interest groups have no incentive to consider the national interest. Each corporation or financial institution is focused on immediate advantage. For their campaign donations or other payments they want an immediate return. Donald Trump illustrated that for us when he explained during his speech in Phoenix why he had donated to both American parties without distinction - he wanted his building permits. The fact that he abominates one party and quite likes the other was neither here nor there.

I don't push this argument too far. There is no doubt a world view common to the various interest groups and they will at least hope that the recipients of their money share that world view. But the over-riding aim is to get a commercial return. In that, given that the pork barrel isn't limitless, Monsanto is competing with Raytheon, not colluding with it.

Once they've got their building permits or their contracts I don't think the vested interests are too interested in what the politicians they buy get up to. Neo-con politicians call for increased defence spending, the Neo-liberals call for increased globalisation, and such aims are in line with what the corporations think is generally beneficial to them. But aside from that I don't think the politicians or administrators are troubled with too much supervision or direction.

And of course they don't get it from the mass of the people. The ordinary voters are closed out just by the fact that it costs so much to get a politician elected. They are also closed out, particularly in foreign affairs, by the fact that they know very little about what the politicians are actually doing. The interest groups not only own the politicians. They own the media.

This results in the power vacuum I assert exists. Little direction or control from outside. Power lying around in the corridors for anyone to pick up. So anyone does.

I suppose it's always been like this, at least in the modern period. But there is a crucial difference. In the past the elites could be relied on to share at least some interests with their populations. They might exploit them but they had a common interest in national prosperity and indeed national survival. What was good for General Motors was good for America. What the aristocratic Churchill wanted in WW2 was what the lower classes wanted. That common interest no longer exists. As we see from the recent Ford settlement, what is necessary for the survival of a corporation is directly contrary to the interests of the people. The corporations have little incentive to change the framework within which they operate and thus bring the two sets of interests back into line. The people have no power to do so.

So the elite doesn't have a plan and the people don't have a voice. It's not just that the ship is steering in the wrong direction. It's more that there's nobody at the helm,

I believe this impersonal, even mechanistic explanation accounts for the most of it. For the people of the Middle East or of the Ukraine America is not a malevolent ogre. It is simply a natural disaster. I am grateful to this site for the clearest exposition of this disaster I have yet encountered, but the only effective remedy lies in the ability of the American people to regain control of their politics. A slim hope but the only one.

Peter J A Wright


Peter JA Wright

"The forces acting on the politicians are those exerted by the various financial or commercial interest groups." I am sure such an oversimplification is comforting in its simplicity but it is nonsense. Do you really believe that the neocons, AIPAC and the R2P Harpies are motivated by money? And then there are the poor simple foreigners who kill each other in droves for Wall Street and Chamber of Commerce money? You think that AQ, IS and Nusra are just dupes or co-conspirators with Wall Street? You will have to do better that this simple economic determinism. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Thanks, I will try to obtain it.

Peter J A Wright,

Yes, an oversimplification. No one can look at the great issues in American politics - Pro-Life, Christian Zionism, the increasing unease over immigration, the Second Amendment - and not see that these issues have little enough to do with money. On such issues and many others the politician certainly has to take into account the wishes of the electorate. He won't get elected else. And once elected he can be sure that his actions in such matters will be scrutinised closely by his voters.

But nor will he get elected if he fails to attract campaign contributions. And for that he must give value for money. Contracts, legislative easements, advocacy. In all but the great domestic issues - and even in those there is room for maneouvre - he is accountable to his paymasters. President Carter, commenting on a recent Supreme Court decision on just this topic - "... Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … "

Just an oligarchy. The corporations buy the politicians. And Donald Trump in his Phoenix speech spells out how.

So where does the pressure on the politicians to plan for the long term interests of the country come from? Not from the corporations. Their urgent need is for their individual short term interests to be considered. Not from the people. Their influence on the politician is ever diminishing. There is no such pressure and therefore in the absence of any direction or control the vast political and administrative machine of the American Government is at the mercy of the opportunists and incompetents whose decisions I have so often seen dissected and excoriated on this website.

Still an oversimplification but nowhere closer to the truth than in the area of American foreign policy. In this area the neocons, AIPAC and the R2P Harpies have pretty well a free rein. As long as the contracts flow, as long as the body bags don't come home too often, and as long as the American public can somehow be persuaded that it's all for Freedom and Democracy - not difficult with an owned press - such factions can pursue such policies as seem appropriate to them with no fear of reproach from their paymasters or from an increasingly remote electorate.

As for the foreigners who at present are killing or dying in such numbers - well, there we have to examine sites such as these and attempt to puzzle out how much they'd do it anyway and how much the carnage owes to American interference. President Putin is in no doubt on the subject. His question at the UN - "Do you even now not realise what you have done?" shows that. Mr Kerry sees it all as an attempt by the American administration to bring peace to a troubled world. In between we have your own analysis, which possibly veers more towards President Putin than towards Mr Kerry.

But, even though I write as an outsider, I still hold to my assertion that until the American people look at what is being done in their name, and until they find a way of directing it, we are going to see more devastation and ruin for more and more people. If we wish for a better American foreign policy that slim hope, of government by the people for the people, can be the only true hope.

Peter J A Wright.

Babak Makkinejad

You wrote:

"No one can look at the great issues in American politics..."

I do not think that US has any great issues in her politics, hasn't had one since the end of the New Deal Era - in my opinion.

Reminds me of that scene in Jules Verne's "Around the World in Eighty Days" when he and his companions find themselves in a middle of a political riot.

Afterwards they inquire about the cause of such passions and the riots and are told: (I am paraphrasing) "Riots, what riots? It was just electioneering for the County Clerk."


Seamus, Gladio is simply one angle of the highly suspicious Bologna bombings. No doubt highly suspicious at the time.

Not an ultimate explanation as far as I am concerned. Although yes, I have to admit I experienced a hype of awareness concerning publicity. But now I would be interested in a comparative study of German and Italian left wing movements and their counterforces. Gladio seems to simplistic, never mind the cold war.

Gary Webb, haven't heard that name for a long time. Although, not a bad point in the context of "conspiracy" ... but ultimately a journalist and his limited sources, limited in the larger context of unknowns, people, interests, influences, power and money. ...

ever read Dark Alliances? Drugs no doubt are interesting, since tax free fast gain ... Ever stumbled across Michael Ruppert? Another suicide that escaped my attention. As far as "LA confidentials" are concerned he seemed to be supportive of Webb's narrative. On the other hand ... ever read Dark Alliances?


Colonel and other members of the Committee,

This comment may be somewhat OT, but fits within the frame of the topic of "Conspiracy BS".

Can the Committee answer these two questions about supply of arms in Syria and Iraq:

First, is the US presently, directly or indirectly, funding or supplying Al Nusra or Al Qaeda in Iraq or Syria?

(This question is not addressed to inadvertent funding through capture or true deceit.)

Second, if so, what are the reliable evidentiary sources that support the facts?

Posts on this blog over the last few months have hinted at a yes and a no answer to the questions with no clear answer. The Unicorn army is still a ghost army and was quite well funded for a long time and there seem to be row upon row of white Toyotas flying black flags. Can anyone help us pierce the fog on the answer to these questions?


This is NOT a court of law. SST is an intelligence process. This is not a legal question. In the intelligence process we deal in probability based on an accumulation of partial and often circumstantial "evidence" and the inherent skill of the analyst. I judge Nusra and other non-IS jihadis in Syria to be supplied by the US (CIA). pl


Thank you for your reply.

I understand this Committee is not a court that renders verdicts. My impression has long been that the US is supporting Nusra and others and I appreciate your confirmation of my impression.

What I am seeking is some of the most reliable links to that circumstantial evidence to direct others to read who are addicted to Fox and other such Borgista sources.

Sometimes, one of the most important contributions of your site is that it accumulates information in a point of focus with links that open minds. I do not have the knowledge or skill to do it, but a concise "analysis" of the partial and circumstantial evidence of the impression would be very helpful to the readers and lurkers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad