"And now for a world government" - Financial Times

[kyser_soze]

If the same elite power group can have the right placemen (its usually men) that can smooth out some of the inevitable clashes you cite.

One coporatist EU official doesnt equal NWO, but it does show us a mindset. We know the EU and the like are increasingly coporatist and not really afraid to say so. And we also know Il Duce had another word for corporatism.

The EU has long had two distinctive threads to it's thinkers - corporatists/technocratic types who see the ECSC and early EEC model (based as it is on the French dirgismé model) as the way forward (people like the chap in your FT article, that old French artistocrat type who hated Thatch...what was his name...dammit...); and those who look to something akin to the German/US model of federation, with greater democratic elements, more autonomy from the centre (within specific parameters).

The main problem with the EU is that it's based on 'vision' - some have the dream of a united Europe, some dream of a 'centre of Christianity' - and they are the ones in the ascendent within the high ranks of the EU...

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Butchers

i that way you easily fall into the trap of turning regional blocs based on increased competition into avatars of world govt as all capitalists have the same interests at the same time right?

Depends if those at the top of each bloc feel more in common with their own blocs citizens or with people at the top of other blocs. I know where my money would be.

Obviously NWO conspiracist analysis is that the structure is pyramid in shape.

I dont see how that would contradict say a Marxist viewpoint.

 

[butchersapron]

I know the bankers profitted from both sides. Always do. War is a racket as General Smedley Butler said.

I expect Hitler was a case of someone who got "out of hand", but anyone who looks at the history will know that he was admired by many in the west before it got to that.

Do elites say "let's fix a war here or there"? I expect so. Was WW2 one of them? doubtful overall.

He was talking about Imperialism - do you understand, he directly connected it with inter-capital competetion. You really are just looking at the surface here, instead of asking what is the motivatiing dynamic, what is driving these things i see.

The rest is the usual bollocks of somehing happened therfore it's always happening and is the only possible explanatory option for all future events.

 

[Dillinger4]

My view is shaped by a certain reading of Thomas Pynchon,

For Pynchon, World War II was a monstrous holocaust, a cataclysm of 40 million souls, resulting from a competition among technologies. The old dynasty, the J. P. Morgan dynasty, was built on the technologies of coal, steel, and railroads; the newer Rockefeller dynasty on the technologies of oil (petrochemicals, plastics), aluminum, and aircraft. Pynchon says that World War II was a corporate war reflecting those technologies, that for many their “first loyalty, legal and moral, is to the estate [corporation] she represents. Not to our boys in uniform [the nation-state], however gallant, whenever they died” ( Lot 49, 53).

In Gravity’s Rainbow, Pynchon has to bring up the long ago relationship between Standard Oil and the I.G. Farbenindustrie. Standard Oil and I.G. Farben did arrange to share world markets in 1936, and as an act of good faith, they exchanged some 2,000 patents just prior to World War II. Their multinational character forced them to make arrangements for the contingencies of war.

When World War II erupted, their loyalties were so strongly with each other that the US government had to bring legal action against both the Standard Oil Co. (NJ) and I.G. Farbenindustrie (see Pynchon’s list, Rainbow 538) for illegal monopolistic practices involving gasoline, toluene, and synthetic rubber patents. The US government seized many of these patents ultimately. Standard Oil, it seems, also gave Farben the technology, personnel and equipment for the production of tetraethyl lead, without which there would have been no high octane aircraft fuel, no luftwaffe, and no war. Then Sen. Harry S. Truman, the investigating committee’s chairman, viewed the relationship between these multinational corporations as treasonable.

By referring to this multinational liaison as “the century’s master cabal,” Pynchon is suggesting more than corporate cooperation. He is suggesting that World War II was part of the “Plot Which Has No Name,” the concerted effort by the new dynasty to bring down the old dynasty. This is hinted at again and again in the book. Anyone can go to the 1942 yearbooks in any public library and get the information from just about any newspaper. Anyone who’s interested knows that John Foster Dulles's law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, represented I.G. Farben during the war and after, as well as the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, and the Shroder Trust, formerly Hitler’s financial agent. It is all known, in the New York Times, in the Senate hearings, in current books about that period.

http://www.ottosell.de/pynchon/inferno.htm

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers

i that way you easily fall into the trap of turning regional blocs based on increased competition into avatars of world govt as all capitalists have the same interests at the same time right?

Depends if those at the top of each bloc feel more in common with their own blocs citizens or with people at the top of other blocs. I know where my money would be.

Obviously NWO conspiracist analysis is that the structure is pyramid in shape.

I dont see how that would contradict say a Marxist viewpoint.

That's right it depends on if the leaders like each other and are friends or not. That's what it's all about - persanal relationships. Not structures long term strategic interests or anything like that. Don't you understand that people can like each other and still have the most viciously opposed interests, interests that they'll act on - 'hostile brothers' to use that excellent phrase again. This is such a frustratingly shallow approach you're adopting that it's no wonder that you're coming up with such easy answers.

 

[kyser_soze]

Do elites say "let's fix a war here or there"? I expect so.

Do you feel a need for this to be true? That all the chaos is, ultimately, the result of someone making a decision rather than the coincidence of interrelated events?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Do you feel a need for this to be true? That all the chaos is, ultimately, the result of someone making a decision rather than the coincidence of interrelated events?

I dont feel a need for it to be true. That doesnt mean it isnt true. Being real life, these things are inevibatblly a combination of decision and coincidence.

The conspiracist angle would be that less is coincedental than appears to the public large. Iraq would be a case in point which that out. Now, obviously a lot of things havent gone "to plan" in Iraq but alot of things have too: The privatisation of oil, the splitting of the population, the setting up of bases for geopolitical military influence.

The US have come out of the episode looking shit, but that might not bother some people too much, even if they are American.

The US elite continue to betray people with the scandalous rip-off of the bail-out and have done terrible things for decades. These very possibly include the assination of a president. Webster Tarpley (not a name that impresses everyone here I know) says the "secret government" (which is more concerned with global domination than the interests of the US people) has basically carried off 3 coups in the past 100 years. The rigging of Bush 2000 was the last, Kennedy the 2nd, cant remember the 1st - maybe the setting up of the Federal Reserve.