The Panopticon
On power, politics, culture and art.
Two cellmates. Prisoners of the cave. Students of shadows. Observers of light. Wander to the outside.
The Panopticon
#11 Pluralism and Power: Navigating Politics, Corporations, and the Global Elites
Ever wonder how political philosophies like Marxism and Leninism shape societal structures and impact the balance of power? Prepare to be intrigued! In a riveting new episode, we unpack the theories of power through the lens of pluralism and pluralist theory. We venture into the fascinating world of government structures, drawing inspiration from the metaphors of Hedgehog and Fox. We unveil the nuances of classical pluralism, elite pluralism, and neopluralism, spotlighting the evolving influence of international organizations.
Can you believe how much financial incentives and government control can impact the power structures within major companies? It's a dizzying reality, and we're here to shed some light. The conversation turns toward the hidden side of corporate control, where leaders have to navigate the delicate balance of power. We scrutinize the dynamics within cults, corporations, and governments, lifting the veil on the price of success and the potential fallout of rebellion.
Ready for a rollercoaster ride through the complex terrain of power structures? Buckle up! In this episode, we evaluate the changing face of the regime and its impact on our world. We also question the differences between democratic and communist nations, and the consolidation of power by global elites. And don't worry, it's not all intense political discourse! Tune in and prepare for an enlightening journey through the interplay of power and pluralism!
Twitter is @ThePanopticon84
News. I Welcome to the penopso time, september 10th 2023. I am feral American here with speaker of the house. Today we finish up our theory of power series with a discussion on pluralism or pluralist theory I should say pluralist theory and our concluding thoughts, a summary of our thoughts, what we've learned these last few months about power Before we dive in. Speaker of the house would say you.
Speaker 2:Nothing. I'm not speaking today.
Speaker 1:As a speaker, you don't speak much.
Speaker 2:No, as a feral American, you speak too much.
Speaker 1:Well we're wild barbarians.
Speaker 2:You blab a lot.
Speaker 1:Blab Say we talk a lot without saying anything. Maybe I should just call it stream of consciousness.
Speaker 2:You yammer.
Speaker 1:Yammer.
Speaker 2:That's a good word, isn't it, yammer?
Speaker 1:Spit. Yeah, yammer is a good one.
Speaker 2:It means here I'll read the definition real quick.
Speaker 1:I spit rhymes.
Speaker 2:Talk loudly and without pausing.
Speaker 1:How'd you find that so quickly?
Speaker 2:Because I have a dictionary at my fingertips.
Speaker 1:But even in a dictionary you still have to kind of finger through it. I'm gonna get with your words.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm a words words.
Speaker 1:Smith, you're good with fingers and dictionaries.
Speaker 2:I'm gonna make a point not to, because I tend to go to the sexual at all times. I'm gonna try my best not to say anything sexual. Why?
Speaker 1:Because that's a debasement of yourself and the podcast.
Speaker 2:No, not, I just want to see if I can do it.
Speaker 1:I don't think I can. Well, maybe our next series should be sex and politics. That way, we have an excuse just to talk about sex.
Speaker 2:Because that's what generally leads to anyway, with everything right. Pretty much. I mean everything leads to sex. Sex, money, power. The three, the trinity, the holy trinity, the three. You got a little cough there.
Speaker 1:What's that?
Speaker 2:You got a little cough there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I got a little phlegm in there, alright? Speaker of the Haas. So what say you? I'm gonna force you to speak. Speaker on pluralism slash pluralist theory.
Speaker 2:Well, I don't know much about it. Right, I was listening to a couple podcasts and one of the pluralists, who's, I guess from the 20th century's name, is Isaiah Berlin. I've read some of his stuff and I'm a political philosopher, thinker, and he came up with this, I guess, metaphor called the Hedgehog and the Fox. Have you heard of that?
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:So, from my understanding, the Hedgehog and the Fox are basically like two ways of viewing the world. The Hedgehog views it in one way, like basically an overarching, absolute type of way, what you would align with a monowism monowism, I guess it's called. And Isaiah Berlin links this up with enlightenment. You know, the enlightenment thinkers think that reason over everything, logic over everything, logics the answer. There's only one answer to everything. And you get to that answer through logic or through reason. And then there's this alternative, I guess, way of looking at the world, and he uses the Berlin uses the metaphor of the Fox that the Fox can see, and maybe you can help clarify this one. The Fox can see distinctions rather than overall overarching view of you over arching viewpoint. He's more able to see the diversities, the ways that different people think different things. And the Isaiah Berlin would say that this links up with the idea of pluralism, pluralism. Why don't you define pluralism for us? I'll throw it back to you. How about that?
Speaker 1:Alright. Pluralism, in a simplistic way, is what we call today lobbyist groups competing for power within the governmental structure. Now there's different branches of pluralism. You have classical pluralism, which is, again in simplistic terms, is various groups competing for power within the government structure, which could be a good thing for democratic societies because it creates a equilibrium which is a balance of power, naturally self-organizing, emergent balance of power in the equilibrium. Then you have the elite pluralists, which states classical pluralism is a little naive in the fact that all powers are equal, in a sense creating this equilibrium. Elite pluralists say that's not necessarily true. There's always a bigger, battered actor within these competing powers that is always been bigger and battered or emerges as bigger and battered through natural persuasion, influence, pressure and all that kind of stuff. Then you have neo-polarism, which is what's different from the other branches of pluralism is that, where the other branches of pluralism state all this going on within the governmental structure, that neo-polarism states that the government itself is a competing organization and it's just one of many competing organizations vying for power, which is interesting.
Speaker 1:I try to modernize it. For me, my thought process is just lobbyists. It's a formal action and theory of lobbyism that we've known for quite some time. Neo-polarism is interesting because it takes every of all these groups out from under the umbrella of government structure and makes government a competing power itself. Then you can step it up internationally. Now you have these international powers outside of government that are competing for power as well. There's a lot to it, but I tend to personally lean back towards. Eventually, at some point in time, even if it started off equal, one of these powers become the main power, the biggest, baddest power, whether it be domestic or international. You could argue that at one point in time you had the American power, which was the dominant power in the world, and I think that is now being superseded, or many could argue that's being superseded by international organizations such as the WEF and the WHO and other things like that, where the new power is an international power as opposed to a state power. That, we've been told, has been the norm for quite some time.
Speaker 2:So you and I guess the elite theorists, like someone like C Wright Mills or even communist theorists, who view the world with this overarching narrative, that it's kind of a one-way thinking, the hedgehog type mentality, you guys would be anti-pluralist. I mean, it sounds like you're kind of you're thinking like there's this overarching power structure, that it's not this competing dualities, there's this absolutism almost. Am I correct in saying that or no?
Speaker 1:No, I think it's somewhat. I think the structure itself, or the idea or the potentiality always leads to something or somebody being more powerful than others. I think the structure, like who occupies, like, I think there's always going to be the archetype of hierarchy. There will always be a hierarchy. Now who's on top and who's on bottom?
Speaker 1:How they got their changes all the time through this pluralistic kind of lens, I think there's always competing powers. I think one or a couple of these competing powers become bigger, bad and stronger. They rise to the top of the hierarchy. But I also am a believer in cycles and eventually these groups who are on top much like the American Empire, the British Empire, the Roman Empire and others eventually fall to other like powers or something completely new arises, like what we're seeing today with these international, extra national organizations that I don't recall have been around and quite some time for sure. I'm sure it's happening. I'm trying to think of the closest, like the India Indian Trading Company and things like that were kind of international groups, but those were sponsored by a state like Well even as opposed to international, they're more outside national.
Speaker 2:What's that called Extra national? They're actually corporations that oftentimes, like I was reading this book called the Club, which was about the intellectual, writers and artists and thinkers in late 1700s England they were critical of. A lot of them were critical of the East India companies and companies like that, because they go over to these colonies essentially and they are operating outside the national law or any law. Really it's only the law of the company or the corporation and that includes moral law. They do whatever they want and they're not any. In many ways they're not tied to any nation. Do you know what I mean? So they don't, they're not invested in that nation necessarily. I mean they might be because it's the mother nation, like, let's say, england.
Speaker 2:But when you get to the levels of now where it's like this is one of our critiques of a lot of the corporations now is that they're so they're not really invested in us in a sense. I mean they are because it's a market right, the US is a market, but when it comes down to our certain values, that goes out the window, you know. But back to pluralism. So here's what Wikipedia defines pluralism as. Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. Did you already read that? I can't remember.
Speaker 1:I summarized it yeah.
Speaker 2:So you know a philosophy like Marxism, let's say, or Leninism, stalinism, maoism. They're not really pluralist, they're definitely more rigid. I mean, if you read the Communist Manifesto and stuff, it's like it's in fact dividing, it's like a binary system Marxism and the Communist Manifesto. It's saying there's these two groups that are completely distinct from one another the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. All the proletariat are good. You know, all the bourgeoisie are bad. We're on the part of the good, we're the proletariat, we're going to rise up and we're going to, you know, take power.
Speaker 2:It doesn't really account for all the distinctions and value, competing values within the proletariat itself. You know, it's very rigid. I would say it's like what Berlin's talking about, with the Hedgehog type of mentality. It's uniform and it doesn't account for all these different types of people. In fact, a lot of the laws and the way they executed those laws, from what I understand in, let's say, stalin's rushes trying to purge out all the competing voices and value systems, would you say you've read a little bit about Stalin. Is that how he operated, or that system?
Speaker 1:I think you know stalling. I think it goes back to supporting what I was saying earlier. Eventually, someone, someone or something bigger and bad, or always, emerges from these competing groups, and I think stalling is a result of that. And then you, the good tyrants, are able to manage all these competing groups and then also play them against each other when, when needed, and stalling himself becomes one of these competing groups, or at least his network, his system becomes the emergent and most powerful group.
Speaker 1:Because, you know, many people argue that stalling was a true believer in communism, and that might be true, but it's really irrelevant. He was able I don't think his actions became or his actions were a were communist actions, decisions, these are, these were actions of a, of a quote, unquote tyrant or a dictator, whatever you want to call them, and these were actions of his own, his own cult, his own political group, his own actions, as you stated earlier. Or what we talked about earlier is, communism was just the, the means, the skin, if you will, to present to the people, to rally the people, but you take that skin off. It's really just one thing. It's the striving for control and power. Capitalism is the same thing and yeah, and you saw that in the 19th.
Speaker 2:You saw that with the 1950s, with the clamp down on alternative voices, the censorship, the you know Red Scare, the conformity, the culture of conformity that was so strong and that was promoted at that time, and it's operating under a capitalist system, supposedly I mean in name at least.
Speaker 1:And these other competing actors, if you will, includes religion. Religion is a skin as well. You take that skin off. Really, what the system or the structure of religion is trying to do, I think, is is compete with the other political organizations for power, and that's why, many times, like people like Stalin, eliminate, liquidate, mitigate religion because it's a competitor.
Speaker 1:They are able to see Stalin, hitler, mao, the rest. They are able to see the world as it is and all these organizations, as Nietzsche again described and alluded to, is these are all. This is all skin. It's not the truth behind it. What the you know they're. They're able to recognize the world as as a striving for power and control, even under the guise of virtue and morals and things like that. That religion leans on to control the masses, and so they get rid of them. You know, and and at Catholicism's height they did the same thing back in the day when Catholicism was on top of the world they are trying to eliminate any potential competition by getting rid of kings, stirring up the people and getting rid of kings, and you know getting rid of Puritans or or Protestants.
Speaker 1:Yes, so you can definitely see the world. You can have more, I think, see the world with more than one lens if you will, and I think that's what they tend to see, that people they like put their badge on one theory and defend that theory to the very end. But I think you can be a pluralist, a communist, or see the world at least, at very least, through the pluralist, communist, realist lens, all at the same time, and maybe that's some sort of grand theory of politics. I just think it's. You know, if I have to put in a certain one would be a realist theory. But even realism has its flaws as well. Well, I was listening to this pot.
Speaker 1:Go ahead.
Speaker 2:I was listening to this podcast on pluralism as it relates to religion, and the two speakers were I don't know what denomination of Christianity, but they were Christians and they were showing how pluralisms, like they were critiquing pluralism, they were saying oftentimes what people who are say they're pluralists and that they're religious. For example, they'll say, oh, I am a Christian, but I don't think it's right to enforce my belief on someone else.
Speaker 2:You know, can't we just all get along? You can have Muslims and blah, blah blah and that way. In that way it kind of. First of all they say people who think that don't actually understand the religions and secondly, what was?
Speaker 2:the second part. Secondly, there was another reason why he said that that's not a proper way of thinking. Oh, that it discounts Christianity as the valid way of truth. But they also talk about how Rome, back in the day, you know, would and this relates to what you were talking about with Catholics and whatnot Rome would say, oh okay, you Christians, you can believe what you want to believe. You know there's different, competing gods out there. As long as it doesn't compete with, like the Roman gods, you can celebrate it. You can do what you want. Well, erect a statue, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 2:And the Catholics did that in Latin America, I believe they were in these types of ways called cultural syncretism, where they would, you know, incorporate the natives rituals and gods and whatnot into the Catholic Church. And we saw that with some of the churches that we went to is that it's very indigenous looking and yet Catholic at the same time. Some churches that our tour guide was saying that they idolized Coca-Cola or something like that, they incorporated that into their Sunday rituals and whatnot, all these weird, different types of ways, whereas Protestant, at least in the United States, were more about getting rid of those competing voices with the Native Americans and so on, you know. So I think, like with Rome, for example, empire right, you can allow those competing voices to exist as long as they don't pose any type of threat to the power elite, the empire basically and that overarching system of beliefs and values.
Speaker 1:But we're we're pluralism.
Speaker 2:I think some people like it's some of these thinkers, it appears are saying the people who are sort of pro pluralism they're saying that that's pluralism, a recognition of all the diverse voices have sort of an equal right to say something or to fight, or to lobby and have a say in the way policies are created and enforced in government. That that's kind of a naive wishful thinking type of mentality to think that that's the way it actually is, like you were saying earlier, that it's naive to think that there's not some leader in the game, so to speak, that someone who's actually has the most, or some group or entity that has the most, say, the most influence, the most power that, yeah, you can have. I don't know. You know trans rights groups or you know you know, you know, you know.
Speaker 2:You know people like anti-war groups or speaking at the government and trying to have money behind them, you can have that exist, but at the end of the day, their influence is in no way competes with someone like a group, like the CIA or these war profiteer corporations, you know. So it's like an illusion, I think, to believe that pluralism is the overall way. Well, I don't know, maybe. What do you think about that? Maybe it is. You could be both. You could be pluralistic in different theaters of the government, or different, what have you. But at the end of the day, there's going to be this sort of equilibrium where a leader comes out on top.
Speaker 2:Now you said and you still say that the government or the whoever's in power uses these distinct voices against each other. Or you know, you've always said that the LGBTQIA plus minority groups, all that have been hijacked and used as a way to shift power or to retain power for the elite.
Speaker 1:Yes, and I think with that particular example is now yeah, the elite for sure, but within the elite, the different branches of the elite like it can be used. Lgbtq can be used by the government to gain, maintain, expand power, but it can also be used by corporations. You walk into a target during Pride Week it's like 4th of July, so they're making money off that or potentially, it seems like I don't know what the audience is for that, I don't know how many people go out to target and buy, but it's marketable. You can market LGBT just like you can market American patriotism with during 4th of July. You know, go out and buy. You know your red, white and blue shirt and flag and fireworks and stuff like that.
Speaker 1:So it presents another opportunity that corporations didn't have in the past for them to make money. You know, when the LGBTQ folks were hiding in the darkness of back streets and back alleys, corporations couldn't make money off of that, at least not at scale. And now you can. Now you can make money off of that kind of stuff. And you look at trans issues right now.
Speaker 1:The medical community can make a lot of money off of that now with surgeries and the mental health that goes with it, and so every branch of the medical community can find and seep away into again, in the end, make money off of this as well. We oftentimes or at least from me and as an outsider you as an insider may see it, but forget that the medical community is a competing organization, one, two. I think the primary purpose of that medical community is to make money too. It's a corporation. I mean, how much money did hospitals make off of COVID, for example? Or from cancer or from diseases or from sick people. They need sick people to make money to fill those beds that you're sloppin on.
Speaker 2:They need new viruses, they need new vaccines.
Speaker 1:You have empty. If you have a quiet night as a nurse or with a bunch of empty rooms, that might be good for you because you can relax for a night, but it's not good for the business side of things.
Speaker 2:No people get admitted all the time at the hospital for reasons that we believe they should just go home for. And COVID, during COVID that was a lot of them were COVID positive. You know it's like first of all, apparently hospitals made a lot of money if they admitted a patient with the diagnosis of COVID. So that's one thing. But you know all sorts of reasons like you're saying.
Speaker 2:There's we do these nightly reviews basically of staffing versus acuity of patients and beds how many beds there are that have people in them and there's a productivity level that they're interested in the hospital. They want it to be 100 or over percent productivity Because if they're anyway under there, the manager tells us hey, you're in the red tonight, blah, blah, blah, as if we really give a shit. The only time we care is when it's over 100%, because what that's saying to everybody is that we are operating understaffed and for that reason we're making more money. You know, a higher percentage productivity has only been beneficial really to them, the corporation, not to the patient, not to the staff, because the patients, I mean, I guess really maybe what you should be at is like 100% or a little bit under, and whoever you know they come up with these rubrics of what makes 100%. So I don't know.
Speaker 2:But, yeah, definitely the medical community is a huge voice, you could say, you could say in the political system. But what about when we take into account, when we talked about the Bud Light disaster, that it seems that these companies a lot of the times were making decisions that they almost had to have known would have lost them a lot of money? Target, for example, I mean, if you're making allegiances with these sort of fringe groups like Trans, at the same time you're alienating a huge group that goes to your, that buys shit at your place, like white Republicans, for example. So that's what I don't understand In this topic of discussion is when you say it's all about money, but these corporations are making decisions and that seem contrary to that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so here's the thing is like. I think the government or various organizations within government or outside government are making promises to Bud Light that they're going to be taken care of. You have to take one for the team, and it's funny that you mentioned that because you mentioned Bud Light specifically Two days ago. Bill Gates Foundation buys Anheuser-Buschstock worth $95 million after Bud Light fallout, so they're going to be taking the money is not the problem. I don't think it's the messaging. That's the most important thing for whoever's in charge of this whole thing.
Speaker 2:And so, and you say, that was probably written in the cards before, but I think it's absolutely.
Speaker 1:I mean we.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's what we thought when we discussed that back then.
Speaker 1:Unless you know businessmen are trying to short Bud Light like drive their stocks down to like pennies on the dollar and rich people like Soros and Bill Gates come in, buy $95 million worth of stock which you know before the fiasco would only get new X amount of stock Now that it's pennies on the dollar. Now that the stock has been driven down, he can own, let's say, 95 million. Before the fiasco would buy you 15% of the company. Now that the stock is driven down, you can own 40% of the company. So it doesn't mean perhaps it doesn't mean everyone at Bud Light was in on the gig or was you know was part of the plan, but maybe important figures within Bud Light were part of the plan. Hey, let's drive the stock down and Bill Gates will take care of us later. Or maybe at the macro level, where everyone on the board was knew that this was going to drive the stock down, knew that someone would later on come down and buy it. So the amount of complicity is hard to determine.
Speaker 1:But I definitely think that there was some coordination going on before and after. At what scale, I have no idea.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because we also learned when we talked about that is that these companies Bud Light, as an example, is not an entity on its own. Do you know what I mean? It's so interconnected to this greater, all these other network of companies and parent companies and then overarching, that is, the finance companies that we talked about with the global elite. So Bud Light's just, let's say, I don't know one organ in the body of this thing that you can live. You have two kidneys. Let's say it's one kidney that you can. It can be damaged. You know, financially that's not going to ruin this greater financial system that they're set up with this network. You can repair it. You know things like that. It can come back later, whatever a year later. You say ding dong bought all these shares. It can be reinvigorated later. The purpose of it it appears to be this political thing that we're talking about, not financial. Do you know what I mean? Like there's a mess. You were talking about the message was the seemed to be the overarching aim of what happened there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think it's. I don't know how like uniform this is. Maybe this was, maybe these are still two competing organizations vying for power but have come to an agreement, maybe, if it is true, with the neo pluralism, that the government wants a certain goal, that is, you know, this new, new ideology that it's trying to promote and understands that it needs to do that at all phases of society, through sports, through culture, through beer, through all these especially Americana things that have been quintessential American in the past. But know that businesses, big businesses like Bud Light, aren't going to do it for free. They're not going to put out these type of things when it knows that it's core audiences, core consumers, are going to reject it without some sort of compensation.
Speaker 1:And I think the government has a lot of money, government has a lot of control, or these entities have a lot of control over people like Bill Gates. If you start putting these dots together, setting up Bill Gates going to fucking Epstein Island, they own, they own Bill Gates. Now Bill Gates is going to do whatever they, whoever they are want them to do. So Bill Gates comes in, buys a large amount of stock later on and kind of helps mitigate the financial problems, but this also gives Bill Gates a lot of power within Bud Light too.
Speaker 2:But I think once Bud Light is part of a merger whenever that took place and a parent company bought it, then Bud Light's no longer like. I mean you have to take into account the other businesses and of that parent company. You know what I mean. How else does it make money? I'm sure many other ways.
Speaker 2:Then Bud Light, the value of Bud Light within that company is less than if Bud Light was by itself. Do you know what I mean? So it can take a hit. It can even ruin it if it wanted to, if it was powerful enough, which it would appear that that's kind of what happened. I mean it took a huge hit financially and in the public eye, commercially, but that can be changed in the future. Like what's happening now is like it appears Bill Gates is trying to. Well, I mean, he's spending a lot of money, so he knows there's something in that investment. Do you know what I mean? It's not completely destroyed. There's going to be efforts to bring it back, whereas you're implying that Bud Light may have made an agreement with whoever to do this political maneuver with the compensation in the future, the promised compensation, as if the leadership of Bud Light is somehow a separate entity. You know what I mean, and I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 2:I mean, I'm much more of the elite theory type of mentality. Is that, especially taking into consideration all these monopolies and mergers and whatnot, is Bud Light's just a finger in this huge body of a financial system? So the leadership too is they're just like little managers. The leadership of Bud Light, I would assume, is just little managers in this. They just do what they're told.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I think it's, they do what they're told. Yeah, I mean it could be, it could be. I don't know how uniform it is, I don't know how many groups are vying for power, how large these groups are, but I also I'm a believer that there are organizations that are relatively independent of one another but make agreements with another for both's advantage, and that eventually, at some point in time, it does become the power, does become consolidated. And then you have you know what communism is. They co-opt all, they nationalize all, you know all the resources in the state. At that point in time, we know for sure there's only one, one power in charge. But even within that power there's, there's struggles going on for individual supremacy. You know, hey, everyone's trying to be the right hand man of Stalin or whoever's in charge. So there's fighting going on. There's also schools of thought within the power structure. You know, even the Communist Party has competition going on within itself. So that, I think, is always the case. Like I said, there's always, it's always churning.
Speaker 1:It's the chase dynamic is all it's dynamic, it's always churning and no one is safe, not even people like Stalin. That's why they have to react. The way they do in many ways is, you know, they have to purge. They like, they have to purge military, they have to purge political circles, because you can't let any one thing, any one body or organization get too powerful or they're going to eliminate your ass eventually. So you have to keep that instability, that chaos going at all times.
Speaker 2:If you're the person on top, but you also cannot detriment your, your, your integrity of your state, so much so that outside nations can take advantage of it. Do you know what I mean? Like with Stalin, when he purged all these great military leaders, the saying goes, or the thought goes, that he really injured his defense system, for when Hitler came knocking at the door or busting through the door, he was at a huge disadvantage. You know that you have to have to. You have, I mean. It seems that the leader or the person at the top has to do this delicate balance.
Speaker 1:Like maybe he was a tyrant, maybe he went too far in trying to purge all these people or to consolidate his power without respect for what was going on in the rest of the world near him, to yeah, it definitely takes talent, takes an art of leadership to not push it too far, to purge the right people at the right time at the right place and then oftentimes, in what type of punishment or what type of purge do you kill him?
Speaker 1:Sometimes he would send off some of these key leaders off to Siberia for years and then bring them back in and then fucking purge them again. You know so it takes a extraordinary amount of talent, intrigue, mastering all the kind of levers of power to maintain power for that long, because you do need to disrupt, you need, you do need constant chaos, yeah, and then, amongst your rivals or potential rivals, keep them at each other's throat, but at the same time you can't break it, because then it could be taken advantage of from, you know, outsiders. Or, like Robespierre after the French Revolution went too far, or at least he didn't approach it the right way, basically said he's going to take out the entire elite. Well, they turned on him. But essentially, I mean Stalin did the same thing, because he just did it in phases as opposed to all at once, or, you know, he didn't say it out loud. I don't know what the difference would be between Stalin and Robespierre.
Speaker 2:But, yeah, it goes to sit and to play off. What you're saying about how constant chaos create that within the competitors directly around you applies to the competition of the people, that the people pose the greater mass of your people, and this was in that biography of Mao that I'm reading is early on. He said you know, chaos is good for the chaos within the public or the culture is good for the people in power, and that's why these communists and I would say the US is or Democrat democracies, so called neoliberal democracies, are good at doing that. They're good at public manipulation. You know psyops keeping that demoralization of the public going through whatever means at their disposal. You know, keep them fighting each other versus directing all their aggression, frustration and contempt toward the top.
Speaker 2:Yeah, now, now what? I've never studied really anything about how they, how that happens within the year there, immediate competitors like people who actually like Trotsky and Stalin, for example. You know how does that all happen within these little groups at the top? I mean they keep them on edge, that's for sure, constantly questioning. You had mentioned once loyalty. What do you call that? Loyalty tests?
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, where they'll yeah. I mean, I think that's, I think what we, the best thing we can do, as like clubs, is. We all do. We do it at our level, even amongst the multitude, and you have to assume that they do the same thing at their level. The only difference is, I think, the repercussions and consequences of a lack of loyalty, like to Stalin, as an example, is much larger than that of, I don't know, your friend, your best friend from high school or whatever.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, and it kind of relates to what we'll talk about with.
Speaker 2:George Orwell's 1984 is the closer you as an individual get to the gets to the center of power, the more those loyalty issues come into play. You know, winston is he's got on the kind of like outer circle of the elite of power. He's part of the system of history that erases history, you know, and puts in, manipulates history. So he has a part to play in it. It's a minor part but you know he has access to these power kind of outlets, whereas the majority of the proles that I think they call them in the book, they can believe whatever they want really and they can do pretty much what they want because they're not threats. They don't have any access to that inner circle or even the outer circle. But the closer you get, the not only is, the punishment is greater too. Yeah, if you in any way show like a deviation or a in any way a threat, do you think that applies to today?
Speaker 1:to what part specifically?
Speaker 2:Let's just take Congress, for example.
Speaker 1:No I mean like what do you talk about? What applies today?
Speaker 2:The, the idea that the idea no, the idea that I was talking about the the closer you get to the circle of power, the greater you're being monitored, the greater you have to be loyal or you know you're held to a higher standard.
Speaker 2:I guess to think the way of the party or think the way of the status quo and that if you in any way show an individuality or any deviance from it, that your punishment is greater. I mean, I think that's true to today. In celebrity, for example, if you have in any way influence over the public, you're definitely going to be possibly used by whatever, whoever, whatever entities. If you say, like with Roseanne, for example, if you go against the grain, you're going to be ousted. Because if you say it as Joe Schmo on the, you know tick, tock, no one gives a shit.
Speaker 1:So I definitely think well, because you become, you're emerging as a potential competitor. You know, maybe not, or at least you're starting to build small levels of power, enough levels of power that the larger powers have to deal with you If you're outside of, if you're outside of the narrative, because one thing that they can't tolerate is any dissension at the top, amongst influencers, amongst actors, celebrities, politicians and so forth, because that is probably the existential danger to the regime is, once the regime members within the regime start splitting, then that is a crisis for the regime, because you become potentially a Caesar and you know you start to fracture the regime at the top. Then you do threaten the survival of the regime because you you represent the regime at the highest level, or at least even at the medium level, and that can't be tolerated. Some pleb on you know Spotify, who has zero audiences. One is not part of the regime. Two, has no influences in the regimes that are going to waste its time on you.
Speaker 2:And that's what I mean. Someone like Winston in 1984, I would say, you know, someone like Roseanne is like a Winston. You know she's not the elite, she's not in the inner circle, she's on the outside, if you want to take that metaphor.
Speaker 2:You know she's on the outside, like Winston, so she does have repercussions to face if she speaks out or she can be used. You know people like that are used all the time, and so I. Celebrities and actors, for example, are so well Joe Rogan talks about it in Hollywood, and even Roseanne that they're all fucking fake. You know they'll believe whatever they are told to believe if it gives them any inch up on the ladder of of success. And I would assume politicians in that whole realm is the same that relationships are based on. You know the over morality or the overall morality of the system itself. You can't have relationships, maybe like with Winston in 1984, that that outer circle of power can. They can. Individuals cannot have relationships with each other, right, because that is in itself a relationship between two people is a threat to the power elite, or the elite, the regime as you call it. Yeah, I'm just throwing that out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and we'll get into it. 1984. I mean, winston was part of the, was part of the party. He was the outer party. Um, o'brien was already the inner party, um, but as part of the party you have to follow all these rules, higher expectations of you, including loyalty that the plebs you know, the proletariat that Winston flirted with, that, at least in his mind. Man, I wish I could be a pluritary. They can go drink, have beers, have good time. They're savages, barbarians, but in many ways that's freedom. They have freedom.
Speaker 2:That us and the party don't have, yeah Well, and I, I would think, like being like you know, 10 years, whatever, you would feel the same way. You can't speak what you want. You know, because primarily all of them were saying the same thing in regards to the political shit going on at the time. You can't be an individual voice. You're gonna lose a lot of jobs if you do that. In fact you might be canceled altogether, and there goes your fucking career. You know you're gonna have to play a role, let's say as a public figure, to spout the party line and the people who didn't like Roseanne. You're done Right. So I don't know. I just think that's kind of interesting. How 1984, once we get into it more we'll we'll talk more about it, but how it?
Speaker 1:was in the real world.
Speaker 1:I think, yeah, I mean. There's rules, unwritten rules. You want to be a celebrity. You want your music to be played and heard across the nation. You want your music in your art whatever that art is painting, acting, directing. There's either unwritten rules or rules that are told to these folks, and when these rules change, or we need you to take one for the team and get up in front of the camera and say Trump's the devil or what have you, whether you personally believe it or not, you have to do it. If you don't, look at what happened to Roseanne, look what happens to Kanye, look what happens to anyone, right, I mean, because there's, so there's, at the very least, unwritten rules are if you're not a celebrity, you're not a celebrity. One of the things, not the only thing. The one of the things is you have to do what you're, what you're told.
Speaker 2:Yeah, like when BLM, when George Floyd, that whole thing happened a lot of the I would say minor actors there were a couple big, big A-listers in that video. Do you remember that video where they're all it's black and white. It's like stop, people are dying, people are dying. I beg you. I mean that's that just reeked of cult type mentality of these actors that they they're almost being forced to go out there and do this. There might be a couple in there who actually believe it, you know, or are are doing it of their own. It's just reeked of a like a cult corporate mentality type of operation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's the ultimate deal with the devil. You, you get to become a movie star. You get to go to the Oscars. You get to walk the red carpet. You get to be in movie A, movie B. You get to travel the world. Um, you get to own a home in Italy, you get to. You know, date, all the hot, hot, you get to pay the price.
Speaker 1:Mm, hmm, and so your soul, your soul and I think that happens in every organization that of course not at that level, yeah, with that celebrity. But there's rules, like you mentioned within, let's say, your hospital written or unwritten rules that you have to fall or if you don't, you're going to have some problems. Like you said, like you go outside the party line, you're going to start scrutinizing how many days off you've had. They start scrutinizing, they kind of review some of the complaints that they had about you. You know they. There's ways to put pressure on you to shut the fuck up about. You know how many beds are in the room and how many patients you have. Um, or we're going to have to review some things. You know they don't even have to tell you that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's the small thing you know you're going to just die on the hill. And and then they get shocked when they get fired. Well, you, you didn't read the room.
Speaker 2:Man, you didn't read yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so it happens. It's just as a celebrity. The the fall is in front of the entire world.
Speaker 2:You know as a nurse no one gives a shit Mm. Hmm. Well, and I think that's what I'm talking about too Like in Washington DC is like all those people are are aware of the rules, right? Uh, for the most part, you're not going to have some Jimmy Stewart idiot pop in and start trying to naively, idealistically, changed it. They're all quite aware of what the the the um bargain is, or what the deal they made and they go about it.
Speaker 1:They know the game, they know the rules of the game and they know the consequences if you break those rules. You know that's why you have. You know the folks like pants and fucking the fat guy from New Jersey. You know everyone's in line with railing against Trump, except for like one guy. And then that one guy become very suspicious of, is like, is, like you know, because the regime still has to have some sort of air of legitimacy or some sort of the rebel guy, the controlled opposition type of thing.
Speaker 1:But all these like pants and his Christianity and all this kind of stuff, they all fall in line with exactly what the regime does, because he either wants to stay in the game and knows what happens if you follow the rules, or they don't want to go to jail or whatever that's. That's much like they did on Gates or something like that. It's like you're going to do what we tell you to do. We've got this information on you that you know you're gay or what have you? You like, you like men and shit like that for him. I think that's one of the rare cases that being accused of being homosexual does ruin your career because he, he has his own kind of a virtuous patriot. You know, if you're claiming that as your kind of platform, the gayness can still get you?
Speaker 2:Yeah, but he could reroute that and like, yeah, like be like a reformed, sort of like align himself with the LGBTQ, whatever, become a reformed, you know what I mean. You could do a power shift that way and still have some, some power, unless it's something else they got on them. Yeah something seedier, yeah, but yeah, he, I can't believe him.
Speaker 1:and Chris, you're still in the mix, like no one likes them right or am I wrong in that I'm still some boomers out there, who, who, who like them. But I think the much like the Bud Light thing, I think it's more about the messaging, the symbolism of it all, that the old, the old neocon Republican establishment is unified against Trump and then, anytime you can get that out in in a debate, get those talking about the Republican establishment. You know Trump broke the Constitution, blah, blah, blah. You have all those people standing up against them. So it in many ways it's, it's still valuable, I think, for the regime to have those folks up there.
Speaker 1:They know that. Yeah, I mean, they're not going to win.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but that's not the point. Yeah, and they were around. You know, there's still characters who were existing at the end of the day and and the subsequent events. You know their, their main characters. I guess you could say in that whole story, or, let's say, supporting characters, so keep them around. Pence was in, you know, vice president. So is he speaking? If he's speaking against Trump, or obviously he's running against Trump, so he's he's showing his divorce from Trump, so that's effective, I think, even though, yeah, like you said, they have no chance of winning. I don't think anyone really likes them. Um, they're just there for, uh, for plot device, for purpose, for that, for that reason, yeah, to show how the GOP's, in allegiance against Trump have you heard kind of a little, a little digression, or some people in the GOP are trying to push this policy to go to war with the Mexican cartels, like actual war. I've heard that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I've seen it, I've heard it. You know, congressman X and Senator Y will float that out there. Um, so I've, I've, yeah, I have seen it.
Speaker 1:I think they're trying to get PR stunt to try to get their names out there, pr stunt, or maybe a message to to Mexico and the cartel that um keep this up, whatever this is, and we can beat the drums a little louder and cause some problems, or again. Again, we're talking about alliances here. I strongly believe that the U S government sees within the U S government or even outside the U S government within the United States, who have a partnership with the cartel, or have infiltrated the cartel and control the cartels, certain cartels I think that's a possibility.
Speaker 1:Um and so again, everyone, everyone gets paid off of this and out of this. And if you can't, you know, support whatever we're trying to to do with Mexico or is going to have problems for sure.
Speaker 2:Or we can find someone who, within the cartels of Mexico, that will support us and partner with us, don't you, how powerful the cartels still are, because I mean, are that many Americans doing drugs Like a legal heroin, for example? Well, there must be shitload.
Speaker 1:I think fentanyl is the big one Marijuana, cocaine, fentanyl or not, marijuana or not so much anymore, but for sure fentanyl supposedly. People are doing fentanyl, I don't know. That's why. Evidently it's a crisis and you see pictures and video down in Philadelphia, or what have you? Everyone drugged up. But even that doesn't seem like the demand meets the supply, like if they're.
Speaker 2:Well, your customers don't last very long.
Speaker 1:Yeah their customers don't last and they can't fucking snort that much cocaine that quickly. I could understand if it was the amount of people who drink sodas and what have you, or junk food. You're pumping all these drugs in on a daily basis, but I don't think that is the demand there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean cocaine. I guess people are doing it. But I mean, like you said, it's not like Coca-Cola Bud Light. It seems a very niche market almost, but who knows, I don't know. I don't really know anyone who does drugs, so I don't know that world how prevalent it is, but it must still be huge because they're apparently still making a shitload of money.
Speaker 1:Well, that's where they have to diversify, for example, cartel diversify into the avocado business, which is a mass demand for that. You can make a lot of money there Maybe not as much as cocaine and so forth, but you can still supplement your income. Or other types of farming and agriculture, lettuce and shit like that More legit businesses than drugs, arms dealing, fucking trafficking.
Speaker 2:Well, pornography used to be, I think, part of that whole mafia operation and the underworld, and then somehow that became almost legitimized. Now, If you think of it that way, on the internet it's supposedly free, but it's not in a way, because there's still advertisements on there, there's still like purchasing you can make for HD videos instead of just your basic video. And remember when, oh, I'd say about two years ago, there was a consolidation of internet porn sites to just I don't even know how many like they got rid of a lot, consolidated them all.
Speaker 2:I wonder what power base was behind that whole thing, and who's making the money now from all that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, who's money? And then if you only have two or three, let's say, major websites, then you control that data too Right you? Could you know if people, especially if people, are paying for it you have their information? Yeah, when you have a thousand different websites. It's hard to consolidate that data.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and then only fans they were. There was a move to get rid of the people making money off of posting themselves naked, which didn't last more than a week or whatever, because that's like the whole basis of their business, it would appear. You know, but anyways, yeah, what else Are we?
Speaker 1:good. I think we're good. Any kind of final thoughts on what we've learned on this overall series before we next week get into some of the books?
Speaker 2:Yeah, god, there's so much. I mean I think I've learned I'm more in alignment with looking at the world in a sort of elite theory understanding.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think you know that's kind of the overarching message I've gotten or the value of it to me is that it's like, oh yeah, okay, these thinkers are. They're more, much more specific, detailed, well thought out. But I've had these beliefs, you know, even before I've read them, these works, and it's just kind of helping me see it more clearly, kind of the understanding I've had since I was young of how these things work. But yeah, what about you?
Speaker 1:Now I agree it's been more of an affirmation of what I believe before. It also affirms that you know you're not out there alone with these type of thoughts. I mean, you and I and Pops for many years would sit out in the back and kind of talk oh, the Republicans and Democrats are on the same side. This was way before Trump. These are like in the 1990s and even early 2000s where on TV they get to have an argue with each other, they say that they hate each other, and then they go to the cigar lounge and play golf with each other afterwards and kind of give each other high fives, basically acting. And since 2016 on, it's revealed these thoughts that we've had and affirmed them, and so same with who's in charge, powers that be and things of that nature have affirmed what my gut has been telling me since the beginning, and it's not that hard, I think, as a human being, to kind of just figure that out.
Speaker 1:What's shocking to me is people still fall for the regime talking points and the regime purposes, and there's always going to be those type of people. It's just it's flipped. Whereas conservatives, republicans and so forth were big on their pro government, pro military, blah, blah, blah, pro CIA, fbi, and it's flipped. Now it seems as though the conservative folks don't trust those and now the liberals trust them. So it affirms that it's really not about values and virtues. It's about who controls the power structure, and right now the liberals what it seems to control it and therefore support it. So support like the military and going to war in Ukraine and things of that nature.
Speaker 1:That's kind of the interesting thing is how people flipped on that. And so when you're protesting Iraq, you're really protesting. You're not protesting war, you're protesting the fact that it was a Republican president at the time for supposedly Republican reasons, as opposed to Ukraine, which is a Democrat reason, a Democrat war for Democrat reasons, and so forth. But it just shows you how I think smart and wise and cunning the regime is. That's something I've learned. So if I had to say one thing, the regime is stronger and smarter than I thought it was before we dived into this series.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I guess with the series I've learned how much more aligned so-called communism and nations of communist nations and so-called liberal democratic nations are and that I mean there's something else there that they've merged We've talked about before. I didn't really think of that before. I'm starting more to think of that. There's actually an elite out there that's international or super national and with all the events that's happened in the last 10 years, the shifts, the rise of leaders who have indefinite control, no terms, no term limits, it's becoming more real and frightening to me. That there's some kind of a consolidation of power to me is what it seems to me Now you could also say that, well, that's a sign of all those leaders kind of declaring themselves leader indefinitely is a sign that there's this oncoming war or struggle, that there's actually a struggle amongst the elite that I don't quite know.
Speaker 2:But yeah, it's all of this that we've read in the past year or so is getting me more attuned that there's something there, there's definitely something frightening and that this I've never really trusted the American government, but now it's becoming. It's definitely more realized now for me, and not only the government but the way the regime, if you want to call it that has control over all these huge systems in the US and in the world really media, internet companies, how they're all tied together, I believe. So lastly, we've been playing FIFA 23, me and your daughters. They're fucking good at it. I can beat them occasionally, but they've got some codes, some cheat codes, that I haven't found out about yet. Did you ever play them at that game?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I played them a couple of times and they're really fierce competitors. They are.
Speaker 2:I mean they, they lose their shit if they lose.
Speaker 1:Yeah, broken TV.
Speaker 2:Well, as an example. Yes, they broke one and broke my TV, not intentionally per se, but it did happen and yeah, shocking, shocking, but they've been winning lately, so they're all good. You know, it's a fun game.
Speaker 1:It is a fun game. So getting back to, I'm here in. I'm here in Chicago, if you can hear the sirens in the background. So next week we will talk the revolt of the elites and the betrayal of democracy. By lash, lash. We're starting to get into our now our book book sub-series within this series, power series. So we'll talk about the revolt of elites, followed by the week afterwards we get into the revolt of the public and the secret world by Christopher Andrew.
Speaker 2:Okay, and then I got a pee hurry up.
Speaker 1:And then chaos by Tom O'Neill, which I'm reading right now. So all right, well, any final words. My fellow speaker of the house, no, all right, I got a pee. I am feral American. The peace speaker of the house, everybody eyes long as I was gonna.
