Original post by SpudDK at WayoftheBern reposted here in its entirety - but stop by and say "Hi" anyway! ~ Thumb

--------------------------------------------

This came from a comment I made, and I have had a hard time shaking it. So, I'm putting it up for general discussion. Consider it my observation on the general dynamics in play. Plausible? Bullshit? What do we think?

How to explain all these ugly, unfortunate events that seemingly always favor the Clintons, and oligarchy in general:

Take the primaries. Clinton herself, or her campaign people were well aware of how all the elections worked and took advantage of that. Early voting, etc...

The idea that she or they orchestrated all the crappy voting issues is not very plausible, yet they happened.

Same goes with these deaths. I just don't buy all of that going to the top. To be frank, they are not competent enough to keep a lid on it all.

Then I think about the rise to power. Lots of deals and that list of people. As one rises in politics, there comes a few basic milestones. One is a party affiliation. Pick, Dem or Republican and that comes with benefits, costs, risks and obligations.

Another may be the oligarchy. Alignment there may work like it does for cartels. You either turn away and occupy some space that isn't a threat, or you work with them, or they shut you down.

Once in, the nature of it means they have leverage. Dirt.

I take all these events to be an artifact of those general dynamics. People have sufficient motivation to act independently to preserve an order that would cost them dearly should it get threatened or exposed.

Secondly, many aspects of all this corruption appear to endure for very long periods of time. Old money, old organizations, old corruption with roots well outside politics, all are in play. Remember, the flow of trillions as well as goals, such as globalist economics, are in play. Those kinds of things work on decade, perhaps century time scales.

In my mind, the New Deal seems to mark the time of modern day conflict and efforts to reform Democrats. Clintons are the popular examples and appear willing and able to play. So they do.

It's not all on them. They are or have made the trade-off, and that is new Democrat, third way, etc... today. The trade-off is a belief we really are better off with oligarchy, old world ideas of wealth and power supporting a ruling class on economics, and a hybrid democracy to support justifying all of that, centered on social issues as a means to present as populist.

Most notably, the concept of leverage is always seen. MI origins, gay people, black people, women (though not a minority), all are invested. Haves, to a degree, in return for supporting this order.

Same goes for what is left of the middle class. Anyone who reaches a reasonable level of security, both economic and social, becomes invested. The choice is always oligarchy, or those bad Republicans will regress all of it, ripping security away.

All of this is bolstered by authoritarian behavior. We have been trending toward meritocracy too. Being poor is something to be punished.

Compliance is where it's at. Don't challenge old money, big corporations, etc.. and if you lack merit, bow and live your role. You deserve nothing because you are worth nothing...

If one takes this perspective, evaluating these seemingly connected, but very difficult to link in a provable way events make a lot more sense!

The war

It's a war. Old world vs new world, and the fault lines lie along economics, the social ceded to liberals, the economic is not.

This all can work like bigotry does, for example. Bigotry is a fault line. Doesn't matter which side you are on, just that you are on a side.

This results in many independent actors all working at common cause. They are well distributed and do not necessarily need to communicate. So there is no basis for conspiracy or collusion. However, collusion does happen, just not as a matter of explicit intent.

In terms of the law, we can't really drag all of that into a court room. And if we did, it would be deemed a political problem. Profound, common, and basic differences between people playing out, not some grand plan or conspiracy.

Old world vs New World

For a model of this difference in the law, and why the youth of the US matters, consider something like the shieks in the middle east. They act with relative impunity, are backed by clerics and the law is rooted in faith.

Go too far, and you end up in prison, or dead.

Our law is different, which makes the game necessary. Here, we can't quite overtly deny the people, so we manipulate them. Specifically, we defined the authority as coming from and granted by the people. (Thomas Paine, "Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason" derive this, if you want to read up on that.)

But, there is the letter vs the spirit of the law in play too. "Yes" is a yes, by the technicalities in the law, sort of like how that long distance slamming worked. It's the letter being followed, not necessarily the intent. The very definition of corruption in play right there!

Over there, it's an older society, jaded, established. There, they just don't bother. People keep their heads down, maybe leave, etc. The corruption and order of power is overt and sovereign. There never was any founding, the radical idea of self-governance had not manifested, etc...

TPP and other trade agreements

TPP and other treaties are all contributions toward normalizing the old order, coupled with USA style democracy, free speech, etc... as a net social good, across the many nations. Call this the grandest of the grand bargains. Cede social power to the people, keep economic power with the wealth.

Once done, and that's TPP and whatever ends up happening with the EU, and the fallout has settled, they won't bother here either. It will be overt. Established, with anyone like us easily being deemed radical, and worth putting away, marginalized, whatever. Nobody will care, nobody will have the power to really care.

Some evidence of that overt power can already be seen. Look at that pipeline lawsuit made possible under NAFTA. Corporations above the people, etc... profit over everything else. Phrengi rules of acquisition! (no joke there, not really in concept)

Clintons (and others like them) are investments to be protected, not the top, organizing, originating force

My point being, there is a lot invested into the Clintons. There absolutely has to be plenty of forces and people willing and able to act to insure that investment pays off too. And these events, deaths, etc... would happen without direct knowledge. Unfortunate. Clintons can say, "I would never" and mean it!

Not the point. Of course they would never. Set piece. They don't have to. Their job is to sell it, make the transition away from democracy on the economic front appear an act of the people. That is all our system requires. It is where the authority comes from, unlike the shieks and other, older forms of ruling entitlement.

Those are divine right, nobility, wealth, intelligence, age, etc... for reference.

We are it? (plausible, and "we" being progressive, humanist types in the world)

The USA is young and turbulent. Young enough to require these things we are seeing where much of the world does not. In a way, we are the last front, established by radicals, and the American experiment is playing out on the world stage right now.

It also means things like, "we must become government" are real people. Very real. If not us, who?

Conclusion

The new deal will not be tolerated on century level time scales, and that is what we are seeing play out in the politics of our time. It's on us to figure this out. Or... globally, we enter a time of great instability, war, etc... and perhaps it gets sorted out that way. However, given the massive imbalance of power, I do not harbor any real hope of violent human conflict resolving in our favor.

Curious for your thoughts.

(Cross-posted from SpudDK, WayoftheBern)