The psychological payoff of refusing to consider "conspiracy theories"

[DexterTCN]

You dug a quote of me up from two and a half years ago...???!!!

He did indeed.

I enjoy a healthy scepticism of the official stories, myself. And a healthy disregard for people who use scorn, mob tactics and ridicule to silence reasonable discussion.

For instance the conspiracy to start the Iraq war still gets on my tits.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

There are, of course, conspiracies. They do happen. And there are cover ups. And cock ups. And governments do lie.

However, in modern usage, a Conspiracy Theory is a set of bizarre beliefs which will admit of no contrary evidence, and which builds ever more weird and wonderful stories to "explain" away the facts.

WTC 7 is a case in point. On first glance, there is footage of a tower apparently collapsing in a suspiciously uniform way. Anyone with normal curiosity will want to know more. However, even cursory glance at the evidence soon shows there is nothing odd going on. First, the famous footage is only from one side; the fire, smoke, and buckling structure at the back is not in the famous footage. Second, it had been hit by huge chunks of sky scraper and burned for hours ... and so on.

Any rational person will soon see there is no conspiracy. The Conspiracy Theorist, however, is not satisfied with facts, and, undaunted by evidence, constructs an elaborate plot unhindered by simpled minded fools such as Occam.

It is this mindset that people disdain when they say they don't hold with Conspiracy Theories.

Firstly, those connotations are as fela fan has said, inaccurate to what the words actually mean. The meaning you construe is one that is a consequence
of the term being degraded in orwellian manner.

But I accept some people want to believe a conspiracy theory regardless of established facts. (Im not sure I go along with your WTC analysis and its taken NIST - a branch of government - nearly 7 years to get the official story into their not very convincing account of how WTC7 came down, but that's another matter)

The converse of your argument is also true. There are plenty of people in the US who still believe Hussain had WMD just prior to GW2. There are plenty of people who would think it a STOOPID CONSPIRACY to say that George Bush Snrs father bankrolled the nazi party, there are stacks of other examples that could be given. Having a closed mind is not exclusive to some CTers. It can be just as prevalant among the "antis"

 

[Darios]

In a society where we are lied to regularly, where with every news item you have to ask "what's the agenda?" and often end up having to do the research yourself, where we have several un-fucking-accountable intelligence agencies that appear to do whatever they want and an increasingly authoritarian government defined by cronyism and spin is it any wonder some people completely lose the plot?

So many people are desperate to not be plastered with the new social lower-other label 'conspiracy theorist' that they will not even raise important issues that vaguely smack of something conspiratorial, however plausible these issues may be. And when something plausibly conspiratorial is dug up, on a platter, replete with facts and information - and Urban is great for this - its seems many people would rather get back to the drama of bitching or lolz than actually consider it.

So we now choke on the new witchcraft accusations - "conspiracy theory" regarding "jews" being the masterminds behind [insert event / concept etc], for example, now effectively stifles sincere debate regarding the disproportionate influence of Israel's amen corner on USGov or how it was possible that the Neo-Cons (with a sizable jewish contingent that can, and has, claimed anti-semitism) were able to create the OSP and, working around the CIA and even Mossad, "stovepipe" complete bullshit re: Iraq into the mainstream almost without opposition.

Then we have cases like Sibel Edmonds et al - when her testimony is taken together with many other corroborating sources it reveals a horrifically extensive black market network of nuclear (and other undesirable) tech propagation, money laundering and drugs, facilitated by the very powers who's current - and primary - raison d'etre is supposedly the destruction of such networks, with our blood, treasure and liberties as the price tag.

There's enough evidence that the USUK (and part time partners Israel, Pakistand and Turkey) mutual masturbation circle could be stopped in its tracks, including the war drums beating for Iran and a lot of important people imprisoned if not kicked through the fucking streets. But no. Not enough people give a fuck - apart from anything else because it sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory". That and a lot of political theorists (and activists) would rather ignore the sticky questions raised by having an unaccountable intelligence service that even our own MPs appear to be wary of even mentioning, never mind carrying out some kind of oversight.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Good post Darios. Another case where few dare mention facts for fear of the burning tyre "conspiracy theorist" placed around ones metaphorical neck:

Dr David Kelly.

Now I admit I dont know who dunnit, Norman Baker hints it was actually Iraqi elements and MI5/6 might just have been involved in the cover up. But there is a lot of evidence that flat out contradicts the official version, but anyone who would say so gets so much flaming - thats one of the weird things - the level of flaming vitriol that replaces rational analysis.

Another short hand is "doublethink" - a cognitive dissonance that takes in one set of data and then accepts official "conclusions" that contradict the data.

 

[frogwoman]

She is certainly stern, and she thinks she's rational. That rates 60 to 70% of the description. I detest her though, there are few things worse than slightly intelligent people passing themselves off as virtually genius.

I cant stand it either. The worst thing is that people actualy take what she has to say seriously.

 

[frogwoman]

Good post Darios. Another case where few dare mention facts for fear of the burning tyre "conspiracy theorist" placed around ones metaphorical neck:

Dr David Kelly.

Now I admit I dont know who dunnit, Norman Baker hints it was actually Iraqi elements and MI5/6 might just have been involved in the cover up. But there is a lot of evidence that flat out contradicts the official version, but anyone who would say so gets so much flaming - thats one of the weird things - the level of flaming vitriol that replaces rational analysis.

Another short hand is "doublethink" - a cognitive dissonance that takes in one set of data and then accepts official "conclusions" that contradict the data.

yep.

maybe not murder, but certainly extremely fucking dodgy. at the very fucking least the evidence is that they drove him to suicide which deserves punishment in itself

 

[danny la rouge]

On the contrary, i believe the term 'conspiracy theory', and all its lexical cousins, says more about the speaker than his/her intended listeners.

It is used in a pejorative way, and is sometimes unfairly applied. But the phenomenon I describe exists, and is - whether you like it or not - what is commonly understood by the phrase.

Firstly, those connotations are as fela fan has said, inaccurate to what the words actually mean. The meaning you construe is one that is a consequence
of the term being degraded in orwellian manner.

But I accept some people want to believe a conspiracy theory regardless of established facts.

Yes, the phrase now holds a quite specific meaning (which is why I capitalised it), not necessarily construed from its individual words.

The converse of your argument is also true. There are plenty of people in the US who still believe Hussain had WMD just prior to GW2.

That isn't the converse of my argument; that is an example of people wanting to believe something despite the evidence.

There are plenty of people who would think it a STOOPID CONSPIRACY to say that George Bush Snrs father bankrolled the nazi party, there are stacks of other examples that could be given. Having a closed mind is not exclusive to some CTers. It can be just as prevalant among the "antis"

Indeed, which is why I was careful to preface my remarks by saying governments do lie, there are cover ups, and conspiracies do take place. The difference between a conspiracy for which there is evidence and a Conspiracy Theory is as I describe in my previous post.

 

[elbows]

Fortunately I am blessed with critical faculties, so I need neither to believe the official version nor the bonkers versions.

You may be aware that there are many, often mutually exclusive versions of the conspiracy. They range from relatively sane but lacking any evidence, to having evidence that is at odds with other versions that also have evidence, through to scientifically impossible or improbable. Given that there are so many varients to choose from, a wise man would steer clear of choosing one I would suggest.

Yes. Some people's sense of trust is all messed up. It seems quite reasonable that history and personal experience cause many to come to see governments as liars. But then some go and make the mistake of then automatically believing anything that contradicts the government. A real shame, that those who get offended to discover they have been lied to, then swallow lots more lies from others, in the name of seeking the truth. It also means they will never believe the government, even though it is bound to sometimes be telling the truth.

Lots of humans like to fill in the gaps, dont like painful question marks in important areas of their mind. There are probably some important reasons for this function, such as needing to make decisions in order to act, but it makes people on both sides of the debate say things that has me slapping my forehead in doh woe.

 

[elbows]

Plus throw in the idea that one of the tools of intelligence services is deliberate disinformation, and we've got an even messier picture on our hands.

I sometimes wonder if there is any old cold war propaganda/disinfo that is still out there, lurking either as a widely accepted mainstream truth, or a conspiracy theory.

 

[danny la rouge]

I sometimes wonder if there is any old cold war propaganda/disinfo that is still out there, lurking either as a widely accepted mainstream truth, or a conspiracy theory.

I'dd say there is a high probability of this being so.

 

[kyser_soze]

(Im not sure I go along with your WTC analysis and its taken NIST - a branch of government - nearly 7 years to get the official story into their not very convincing account of how WTC7 came down, but that's another matter)

The average lenght of a NIST investigation is 5 years. You want them to hurry this? You think a rush job would be good in what is an extremely complex investigation? Do you know anything about NIST at all?

So we now choke on the new witchcraft accusations - "conspiracy theory" regarding "jews" being the masterminds behind [insert event / concept etc], for example, now effectively stifles sincere debate regarding the disproportionate influence of Israel's amen corner on USGov or how it was possible that the Neo-Cons (with a sizable jewish contingent that can, and has, claimed anti-semitism) were able to create the OSP and, working around the CIA and even Mossad, "stovepipe" complete bullshit re: Iraq into the mainstream almost without opposition.

Well maybe if the 'Truth' movement had better quality control over those who espouse it's views, and disavowed association with anti-semites maybe more people would listen? Also - the power of the Zionist lobby in the US has been well documented in the press in the US and UK, despite the increasingly weak accusations of anti-semitism that accompany them. And as for the lie over Iraq, there was a huge amount of unsupportive coverage globally - the real insult was that it went ahead in brazen ignorance of the fact it was fait accompli based on blatant lie.

Another short hand is "doublethink" - a cognitive dissonance that takes in one set of data and then accepts official "conclusions" that contradict the data.

No it isn't. Doublethink does not indicate cognitive dissonance at all, rather the opposite - the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in ones mind at the same time and believe the truth of both of them. For example - being a pacifist, yet imagining violent revolution and supporting both ideas. It's not just governments who practice doublethink - most people do it every day of their lives over something.

It is not a CT to think that the 9/11 commission didn't come close to answering any real questions about that day. But at the same time, it's also not reasonable to think, as you seem to, that the world is governed by a collection of shadowy cabals of the rich and powerful, who plan things out to meet their own ends. THAT is conspiracy theory writ large, and is precisely what is meant by the analysis of those who follow them needing to feel that there is some controlling force in the world.

It's also why those of us who've worked for major corporations and/or in government at ANY level will tell you that there really is not enough competence at the top (and too much paranoia once you're there) for the kind of concerted action you imply in many of your posts...

 

[goldenecitrone]

Good post Darios. Another case where few dare mention facts for fear of the burning tyre "conspiracy theorist" placed around ones metaphorical neck:

And whose fault is that? For years on these boards the conspiracy theorists have been spouting their fact-free drivel while many said it was a shame that such deranged loons were making it more difficult to question actual government incompetence and downright lying. Well, they've certainly done the dark forces work for them. Pat yourselves on the back CTers, well done one and all.

 

[elbows]

Good post Darios. Another case where few dare mention facts for fear of the burning tyre "conspiracy theorist" placed around ones metaphorical neck:

Well I see that in another thread you mentioned the New World Order. I suggest that understanding the proper meaning of that term would be a great way to understand these 'conspiracy theory' issues a little more.

For a start, there are global power structures, they are not absolute, and they change over time, especially after global wars end. The term New World Order has been used by politicians at various moments in history. For example after World War 2, lots of new international institutions were setup, and to the victors went much of the spoils. It was a new world order of power, and sometimes it is talked about in those terms, and its lasted quite a long time, although it has evolved somewhat. At various times when leaders have been talking about taking some action to change the order, they may evoke the term, as Bush Senior did.

Meanwhile there are plenty of people in the USA who do not like federal government, so they certain dont like the idea of the UN or a 'world government'. Some of them are rather rightwing. Many of these people happen to be the highest-profile internet conspiracy theorists. And the term 'New World Order' sounds a bit sinister, and politicians sometimes say it, its been used in some songs. But somehow they use it as proof that one shadowy cabal is plotting world government, and all the rest of that stuff. Some of them are also rather nationalistic, and so maybe the fear of a 'world government' is actually the fear that the USA may lose its dominance.

This is having an affect on some non-Americans, who may make a strange belief system by blending their own distrust for their government, or their dislike for the USA's world position & activities, into these right wing conspiracy theorists conclusions. If such ideologies ever caused a revolution, they run the risk of putting into power the sorts of horrible fascists who may make todays leaders and orders of power look like saints by comparison.

Please, scrutinize your non-governmental sources as strongly as you would wish we all scrutinized the government.

 

[elbows]

Or to put it another way, here is the Wikipedia article for New World Order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order

Its hardly a conspiracy theory to say that people elected to powerful positions have power, any more than to say the rich have lots of wealth. But none of them are gods, they dont always get their way, and they do not all agree with eachother.

Its also not a conspiracy to say that individuals, national governments, and international coalitions, have agendas, and may use a variety of methods, some rather unpleasant, to carry them out. But that in no way means that every horros is perpetuated by them for some shadowy common cause.

In the post World War 2 era, and especially since there has been a general consensus on globalisation, a common agenda, not without its disagreements and rogue states, and complicated by the multi-decade cold war. In any case its clear that there has been much progress on this agenda. But its got all bogged down in the Doha round of world trade talks, shock horror, lots of different powerful people, not completely agreeing. Some fudge may be found, or not, thats politics.

Now tell me what the NWO as used by conspiracy theorists is actually supposed to mean? How does it fit into the complex quagmire of international politics? What does it tell us of use about the world and the direction it is going?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

thanks elbows.

I am aware of the various roots of NWO terminology and the disagreeable politics of many who critique it. But I dont think one needs to be of the right (or left) to share aspects of their analysis. Indeed, "leftists" can be just as guilty of a tyrannical mindset as some on the right.

"If such ideologies ever caused a revolution, they run the risk of putting into power the sorts of horrible fascists who may make todays leaders and orders of power look like saints by comparison."

Would those be the sorts of fascist coup attempts sponsored by JP Morgan (who Blair now works for?) or would it be the sort of nazi regeime sponsored by George Bush Snrs father?

Sadly, we dont have to look as far as The US "patriot" movement to see a potential fascist mindset.

Edited to add: Will get to your other post in a bit. Cheers.

 

[elbows]

Oh Im all for sharing and debating aspects of their analysis. I just think all these labels work against such possibilities.

Certainly if NWO = establishment = established way of doing things, then anybody who hates the current status quo will be wanting to point at the horrors of the current power structure & agendas, and express concern for the future. But I want to hear more about the alternatives, not to have the meaning squeezed out of issues by the use of labels.

I look at many of the things that have happened this century, much of the legislation that is on the books now, many of the apparent agendas, and I am naturally worried about the future. But I believe this is mostly driven not by the scheme of a few 'evil men', but by complex circumstance, and medium-term planning. Hence energy issues and global power struggles are where I focus much of my attention, not to how evil Cheney is on the NWOmeter.

 

[MullahNasrudin]

He just happens to be a bit wrong on this, and Im mildly disappointed at MullahNasrudins description of his dress sense.

Were you there at the time? No. I'd ask you to confine yourself to matters you know about, but that would obviously be pointless.

He looked absolutely Barleytastic and in fact he admitted being the real Nathan Barley (half in jest) when Big Brother makers Endemol took a stake in his production company.

For what it's worth, I think he's genuinely one of the best writers out there -- I just think he's as bad as those he sought to criticise in that article.

My own take on the matter is that what some call conspiracy theory/conspiraloonery is really uncomfortable truth.

If I said that the government were deliberately withholding medicine and using human beings as lab rats, you might say that was conspiraloonery. But that's the sort of stuff the US did with the Tuskagee experiment.

Like career criminals, these fuckers have form.

 

[EddyBlack]

Now tell me what the NWO as used by conspiracy theorists is actually supposed to mean? How does it fit into the complex quagmire of international politics? What does it tell us of use about the world and the direction it is going?

The term 'New World Order' as I understand it is the idea that there is an 'elite' agenda to homogenise and centralise the worlds political and economic institutions under their control, thus undermining national sovereignty and allowing the elite to oppress the disenfranchised people as much as they like.

Nations and the systems of governance we have in the west have developed over hundreds of years to the model we see today of democratic universal suffrage and constitutional rights. The 'NWO' as its opponents describe it is the realigning of these individual institutions into line with the supposed conspiratorial grand scheme of a global elite. The term NWO relates to this elite and their implementation of the process of 'globalisation'. I dislike the term because it is not very useful or specific. I think the 'anti-NWO' brigade has some valid concerns, but it is usually mixed up with a lot of naivety and over-simplicity i.e. the 'illuminati', and 'Jewish conspiracy' fringes.

The emergence of a global super-class as a community amongst themselves, and the process of globalisation (closer co-operation and assimilation and of economic/ political institutions), are in fact fairly new developments which we are only just beginning to understand.

Whether one thinks it is all an ideologically driven agenda (it has had its visionaries e.g. H.G Wells, the Rockefellers) or simply an inevitable development of modern history is another question.

I'm reading through a book at the moment by former head of Kissinger Associates, David Rothkopf (Superclass). This new superclass comprises of the 6000 most powerful people in the world according to Rothkopf. They are a self-conscious community amongst themselves and interact and operate as such through institutions such as the annual Davos and Bilderburg conferences as well as in other ways. The Superclass exists and operates beyond national boundaries, which raises all sorts of questions for our own interests.

Of course there have always been elites, but the global 'super-class' and ‘globalisation’ are recent developments. I think it is fair to say that this community will through their collective shared interests seek to influence and align the world to the convenience and profit of its members. And they, more than anybody have the ability to do so.

 

[DotCommunist]

Charlie Brooker is an unfunny Guardian columnist trying to be funny. I never read him. It is even more unlikely that I'd read a response to one of his columns. I respectfully recommend this approach.

no, he is lulz when on form

I take the view that I don't doubt that the ruling classes are motivated to manipulate events to thier own ends, but I DO doubt that they are capable of the level of conspiracy required to have engineered 9/11. Sorry, but they could not have orchestrated that day attacks. The evidence does not in any way back up the theories of conspiracy

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

there is such a blurring of what goes on here on this thread, to a degree that perfectly illustrates why lizards/9/11/conspiraloon threads needs nipping completely imo. they don't help people understand the essential truth of world dominion or power or empire, forgive the historical references. but obsfucating with lizards and hoax bombers and shit doesn't materially assist an understanding of what goes on and why. real life conspiracies are mundance, run-of-the-mill every day things, its what the world runs on.

 

[kyser_soze]

Of course there have always been elites, but the global 'super-class' and ‘globalisation’ are recent developments. I think it is fair to say that this community will through their collective shared interests seek to influence and align the world to the convenience and profit of its members. And they, more than anybody have the ability to do so.

No they aren't, they're just the latest group to self-identify, or in this case get a lickspittle to identify, a large collection of powerful individuals. The RCC has been doing this shit for 2 millenia, and that was a unified theocratic organisation, not a bunch of hugely paranoid rich bastards who don't trust each other more than they can spit. I'd be interested to see how many non-Western names and faces are on this rich list as well...

 

[Dhimmi]

I sometimes wonder if there is any old cold war propaganda/disinfo that is still out there, lurking either as a widely accepted mainstream truth, or a conspiracy theory.

I'd say yes to the "mainstream truth" but the examples will remain hidden all the time the files concerning them are classified.

There's plenty still doing the rounds concerning events of World War 2, from both sides, only vaguely revealed when participants have gained permission to mention them in memoirs etc.

"Setting the Sea on Fire" is quite a well known one, based around a defensive piece of kit tried down at St. Margaret’s Bay near Dover. Tested enough for the smoke to be visible to the German's on the other side of the channel, and tied in with a successful incendiary attack by the RAF on invasion barges and an unsuccessful German test of fireproofed barges it became self-disseminating. It was exploited too, and many still believe this defensive weapon would have been really effective, with a few still believing a rumour borne of all that of an aborted invasion.

 

[fela fan]

Fortunately I am blessed with critical faculties, so I need neither to believe the official version nor the bonkers versions.

You may be aware that there are many, often mutually exclusive versions of the conspiracy. They range from relatively sane but lacking any evidence, to having evidence that is at odds with other versions that also have evidence, through to scientifically impossible or improbable. Given that there are so many varients to choose from, a wise man would steer clear of choosing one I would suggest.

Many others are not blessed with those same critical faculties. They interestingly display the same level of certainty that they villify in others for having. There may be many degrees of conspiracy, and conspiracy believers, but those who turn up frothing at the mouth using their 'conspiranoid' lexical jargon are mere caricatures of those they attack.

That is the interesting psychological aspect of this topic.

 

[fela fan]

In a society where we are lied to regularly, where with every news item you have to ask "what's the agenda?" and often end up having to do the research yourself, where we have several un-fucking-accountable intelligence agencies that appear to do whatever they want and an increasingly authoritarian government defined by cronyism and spin is it any wonder some people completely lose the plot?

So many people are desperate to not be plastered with the new social lower-other label 'conspiracy theorist' that they will not even raise important issues that vaguely smack of something conspiratorial, however plausible these issues may be. And when something plausibly conspiratorial is dug up, on a platter, replete with facts and information - and Urban is great for this - its seems many people would rather get back to the drama of bitching or lolz than actually consider it.

So we now choke on the new witchcraft accusations - "conspiracy theory" regarding "jews" being the masterminds behind [insert event / concept etc], for example, now effectively stifles sincere debate regarding the disproportionate influence of Israel's amen corner on USGov or how it was possible that the Neo-Cons (with a sizable jewish contingent that can, and has, claimed anti-semitism) were able to create the OSP and, working around the CIA and even Mossad, "stovepipe" complete bullshit re: Iraq into the mainstream almost without opposition.

Then we have cases like Sibel Edmonds et al - when her testimony is taken together with many other corroborating sources it reveals a horrifically extensive black market network of nuclear (and other undesirable) tech propagation, money laundering and drugs, facilitated by the very powers who's current - and primary - raison d'etre is supposedly the destruction of such networks, with our blood, treasure and liberties as the price tag.

There's enough evidence that the USUK (and part time partners Israel, Pakistand and Turkey) mutual masturbation circle could be stopped in its tracks, including the war drums beating for Iran and a lot of important people imprisoned if not kicked through the fucking streets. But no. Not enough people give a fuck - apart from anything else because it sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory". That and a lot of political theorists (and activists) would rather ignore the sticky questions raised by having an unaccountable intelligence service that even our own MPs appear to be wary of even mentioning, never mind carrying out some kind of oversight.

It's a top post mate.

An interesting sideline to pursue is just why so many people don't care, don't give a fuck. I know how hard it is to get a political conversation going in britain, let alone the near impossibility of sustaining it. Words like 'racist', 'immigrant', 'conspiracy theorist' are the classic examples of orwell's political language, whose primary objective is to stop speaker and listener going too deep into their thinking, to shut down any further exploration of the topic.

Britain is unbelievably full of such language. Critical faculties seem to have shut down en masse as a result.

What people really shouldn't give a fuck about is worrying what anyone will think about what they say. People just can't speak up through fear of ostracism. After all, who wants to go to coventry, even when the whole country is developing traits of this one place.

 

[DotCommunist]

No they aren't, they're just the latest group to self-identify, or in this case get a lickspittle to identify, a large collection of powerful individuals. The RCC has been doing this shit for 2 millenia, and that was a unified theocratic organisation, not a bunch of hugely paranoid rich bastards who don't trust each other more than they can spit. I'd be interested to see how many non-Western names and faces are on this rich list as well...

lol, tbh, just lol. intercenine strife in the catholic church sort of defined the politics of europe for a good few centuries.

 

[kyser_soze]

lol, tbh, just lol. intercenine strife in the catholic church sort of defined the politics of europe for a good few centuries.

Pretty much the point I was making. That all happened within an idelogically unitary environment, and there were still plenty of wars, strife, poltical backstabbing etc, and we're being asked to believe that the most rapacious, sociopathic people on the planet act in concert because they all worship an owl?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit...

 

[EddyBlack]

I'd be interested to see how many non-Western names and faces are on this rich list as well...

There are plenty. It simply describes the most powerful individuals, they include the worlds several hundred billionaires, CEOs of major corporations, some presidents and heads of state and others. Of course the majority are American and European refelecting global GDP and the locations of the biggest corporations. The heads of China's state owned banks (there are only a couple) would fit the bill.
I don't imagine they are all in agreement, reading off the same songsheet, nor do I think they all worship owls or planned 911. But I have to say that this class, and globalisation, are new developments. Perhaps some comparisons with the earlier Catholic Church are valid. The most important figures of the main faiths would certainly be on the list according to Rothkopf.

 

[kyser_soze]

The heads of China's state owned banks (there are only a couple) would fit the bill.

Given that there are more $ billionaires in China and India than in the EU and US, I would expect to see more than 2 heads of the State bank on such a list.

I don't imagine they are all in agreement, reading off the same songsheet, nor do I think they all worship owls or planned 911. But I have to say that this class, and globalisation, are new developments.

I agere, but it's precisely the sort of thing that someone who was inclined to think in corporatebloc governance terms would say that this constitutes actual hard evidence of collusion among the absolute elite on the planet - which is where you go off into 'they run everything' territory. My own take on such behaviour having seen the way corporations work internally is that someone does plan something, someone else see a 'main chance' (or even a small one) and intevenes, someone else sees another opportunity etc etc.

 

[EddyBlack]

Given that there are more $ billionaires in China and India than in the EU and US, I would expect to see more than 2 heads of the State bank on such a list.

There are many more, that was an example. Indian steel magnates etc. But as I say, it reflects the global economy with Europe and America being the centres of the largest GDPs and corporations. But there are lots from outside of these places as well.

 

[EddyBlack]

I agere, but it's precisely the sort of thing that someone who was inclined to think in corporatebloc governance terms would say that this constitutes actual hard evidence of collusion among the absolute elite on the planet - which is where you go off into 'they run everything' territory. My own take on such behaviour having seen the way corporations work internally is that someone does plan something, someone else see a 'main chance' (or even a small one) and intevenes, someone else sees another opportunity etc etc.

To quote a bit from 'Superclass':

'While national laws guide government decisions, today companies have the option of relocating their operations, and thereby redirecting investment and activity to locations where such obligations are less burdensome. Furthermore, large companies represent large blocs of people, people with political power interested in the preservation of opportunities within their organisations. They also direct resources toward lobbying, supporting politicians, presenting media campaigns to advance their views, and shaping the public debate nationally and internationally. And companies often work together on issues where their interests align, magnifying their power and extending their reach.'

There are around 166 entities with excess of $50 billion annual GDP or income, 60 are countries, with the majority being companies. Of the 106 mega-companies, there are 53 in Europe, 38 in the United States, and 8 in Japan.

On political influence:

'Look at the campaign contributions figures of major political candidates in the United States and you will see that the most successful candidates depend on the ability of networks within companies and industries to raise the mega-amounts they need. In Tokyo, in Brussels, in New York and elsewhere, businesses not only bear the weight of responsibility for funding lobbying efforts but they also create the environment into which government officials go to work before or after public service; they remain the path to wealth, another source of influence.'

On changes in the global economy:

'Major companies have been important since the days of the British East India company and the Hudson's Bay Company, but nowhere near the presence in the global economy they are today. Even a quarter of a century ago their share was significantly smaller: In 1983, the top five hundred companies had revenues equal to 15 percent of global GDP; today that has more than doubled to over 40 percent.'

Power and wealth has become increasingly concentrated.