“Why do we love the idea that people might be secretly working together to control and organise the world? Because we don’t like to face the fact that our world runs on a combination of chaos, incompetence and confusion.”
Jonathan Cainer
“History is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy”
Zbigniew Brzeziński
So true-it’s much easier to believe in a powerful conspiracy than it is to simply accept that many “big” things occur because of graft,incompetence, randomness or coincidence.
I’m not a big believer in conspiracies on the front side but I do believe that they frequently occur on the backside as coverups and cya s.
Maybe Cainer and Brzezinski are part of the conspiracy that controls the world and are trying to draw attention away from it.
I wouldn’t put anything past John Brennan.
shh-don’t tell anyone-we don’t want you to end up like b’ski-
the zionist mason outlived his usefulness to the kremlin and putin had him killed a few months ago-
(actually,it was trump who had him killed,but on vlad’s orders)
This world is governed by deterministic laws.
Very little happens for reasons that cannot be determined. Decisions are made because there exists some reason for the decision to happen in that way.
The guarantor of this systematized and decidedly directional, predictable and structured environment is, largely, evolution, which applies as much to institutions, relationships and power structures as to biology.
Groups that gather power to themselves and act to preserve it necessarily take power and hold it. Groups that don’t fall out of power, and are removed from the discourse.
Once you judge all of the power structures by the same standards applied to animals in the wild everything makes sense. Conspirators use lies, secrecy and hypocrisy to expand their resources and security. Then, they try to cover it up with a thin veneer of “Oh, I tried, I just bungled it and there was too much chaos.”
However, these groups never bungle it and abandon large swaths of territory, or chaotically dump their tax base. Regulators are quite adept when they’re writing new rules, but once they’re asked to scale back a little, they’re instantly completely incapable of doing so.
The only way they’re removed is when a more fit equivalent forces them from their ecological niche. All of their decisions are highly optimized, making it nigh impossible for outsiders, like new governments or unconnected civilians to edge in on their territory.
It’s actually true that they imagine their policies, even their identity, to be very different from this. Politicians aren’t all perfect Machiavellians. However, that’s just because they have an even better alternative. They believe some feel good narrative about themselves, but the elements of the narrative don’t actually interest them. They constantly imagine ways to collect resources, build connections, and do other evolutionarily fit deeds, but when asked about the effectiveness of their programs in something like, saving lives, they immediately grow bored, or take offense, they zone out. Because, that sort of subject is dangerous. It could challenge their self image, making them unable to present a valuable narrative to the world at large, it could convince them to turn down chances at advancement and more power.
Their own narrative doesn’t interest them, so it doesn’t factor any into any of their decisions.
More broadly, malice and incompetence overlap heavily. They aren’t contradictions. Most incompetence, is just the other party not caring enough to get it right.