[rhinoceros 1]
today big politics are driven by a new kind of quasi-sentient entity called The Corporation. Corporations are supposed to be led by (disposable) human management, but they have their own survival traits, will, goals and pleasures, they do not need to breath air (only indirectly), and their dream society is the Global Free Market.
[kharin 2]
I always get bored when conspiracy theories concerning corporations come up. Elaborate theories of that kind without evidence seem to me to entail a stronger role for belief than a great many religions could claim to. My other problem with them is that the larger any organisation gets the more inefficient it often tends to be; differing geographical and product divisions will follow completely different policies usually with either a complete lack of central control or an excessive one which tends to be even more inefficient. I have yet to see a large corporation which did not immediately put me in mind of Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com). Frankly, most of these firms have great difficulty tying up their shoelaces on a morning, let alone conducting global conspiracies.
[rhinoceros 3]
I am grateful for having this idea put onto the surgical table. This is the second time I posted this; the first time it just fell through -- probably taken as a literary metaphor.
This was not intended as a conspiracy theory, nor as something that would contribute to the corporation's efficiency through actions of the management. Just a possibly useful "anthropomorphic" notion encompassing the fact that the corporation as a social entity has developed some general attributes resistant to human control, which can be seen as traits, "instics", even a "culture". Any comments on the validity and utility of this view?
[rhinoceros 1]
Just remember the "non-war" which demolished Serbia, the economic suffocation of the United Nations until Anan was elected as general secretary, and the non-compliance of the US with treaties about international courts and chemical weapons. All this happened during Clinton's administration. This implies a continuity -- some forces beyond the political scene are at work.
[kharin 2]
Forgive me for observing this but US exceptionalism and unilateralism are deeply ingrained parts of the national psyche, not recent developments, and certainly not necessarily indicative of a conspiracy. You are speaking as if the same could not have been said of Reagan and Wilson when exactly the same observations were made at the time.
[rhinoceros 3]
Maybe you are right -- I am not an expert on American affairs -- but even so, a decade ago USA was still signing international treaties. I am refering to the new trend of cancelling existing treaties just "because they can", trying to reshuffle the deck of cards for the forthcoming "new order".
[rhinoceros 1]
Given the past involvement of American political and economical circles with the Taleban and the personal heritage of Bin Laden, would it be too far-fetched to think of Bin Laden as a provocateur?
[kharin 2]
Given the long history of abject incompetence in US foreign policy would it not be more obvious to regard it as yet another example of blowback?
[rhinoceros 3]
Of course. This one was clearly a conspiracy theory. I have read some articles trying to support this view with economic analyses involving the oil industry, weapons industry, Saudi Arabia, Bush's father, Dick Cheney, Bin Laden's family and much more, but nothing that Occam's razor couldn't handle.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25670>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT