![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Collapse For And By The Elite
I’m sure a lot of people are growing tired of the seemingly endless debates we’ve been having here about the so-called “crash” of civilization. But I just feel like there are too many important threads we still haven’t explored. Maybe thanks to some of the groundwork we have laid here, we will be able to navigate our way through waters such as these. I originally read this on Jeff Wells’ blog over a year ago and it has stuck with me ever since. It is a piece about Maurice Strong, a head muckety-muck in global affairs, even though his name is not widely known. Unfortunately, the only source we have on this is essentially a quote of a quote of a quote, but the source site says this comes from “an interview entitled “The Wizard Of the Baca Grande,” which Maurice Strong conducted with WEST magazine of Alberta, Canada May 1990,” And that this is a “story from a novel he says he would like to write.” It goes a little something like this:
Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists - they’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…?
One of many questions which we could draw from this - whether it’s a true quote from Strong or not - is: are there “elites” who adhere to most of the teachings of primitivist philosophy? Are there elites who not only think that civilization should crash, but who also have the power to make it happen? What kind of mythic story would they propagate across the media and research institutions that they own or generously fund to fan the flames of desparation and panic a few years down the road, to prep populations and businessmen not on their level (but whom they will gladly eat for lunch)? Could that story smell something like Peak Oil? Could their after-the-fact solution look a little something like re-tribalization and re-localization blended with a healthy dose of biodiesel-style Technocracy? Is this just meaningless rampant speculation or are dots being connected?
- Exactly the Right Question
- Is “Lost” Preparing Us for the Collapse?
- Giants Dance
- Something I’ve Discovered About Fear…
- The Dream of Peak Oil
- Prev: As You Love Yourself
- Next: Core Human Values
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I think you may have drunk to much coffee.
The powers that be are unconscious for the most part. They are victims also of our belief systems.
There actually is no conspiracy going on that I am aware of. Just ignorance.
They will grind this thing we call modernity out until they choke the last breath out of it to make a few more cents.
Then they will force a few more hormones down its throat to squeeze out another penny.
You will not find a so called primitivism person in this pack of price system flunkies. They know they just have to wait a little, and not to long for some really bad stuff to happen. They know that they personally need not blow on the feather to precipitate things. They are way to smart for that.
/////////
It is a proven fact that moralizing and preaching at people does not change anything.
If we keep the Rules of the Game as they are now, people will just be rewarded for their bad behaviour.
If the rules of the game are changed , then the players change.
Everyone knows that if they go against themselves, destroy nature, trick consumers, threaten people with privation, they can control our class system in this peculiar system we have now. Every one knows that our system is not particularly good , and is going to end up destroying us in an ignoble desultory way.
Why can`t we stop.?
I wish it would be the choice of people to stop our culture in its tracks and reorient it.
If we don`t do it nature will do it for us.
Natural law does not smile kindly on what we are doing . If you try to break a natural law it will break you.
Nature will take an iron fist at some point and squash us. I hope we have the sense to reform our culture into a vital, humanitarian, free, thoughtful, and sustainable entity without having nature destroy us .
In effect we would be nature destroying us.
We are in a suicidal mode presently. There are no Political, or what are known as Economic solutions to this thing. Certainly no religious solutions.
We are wavering on the precipice.
We must change into a good culture or we will destroy ourselves.
We are not a good culture now.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I don’t drink coffee!
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:21 pm
I don’t see how you can know that. I think you have to assume that everyone has the same resources and research available to them, and that based on sheer probability some of them are going to come to the same or similar conclusions as others lower down the ladder…
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Your right there Tim , I don`t know. But I will say this.
Primitism is sort of ridiculous.
I do not think that many people would take it seriously. I think many aspects of it are built up on so many layers of abstracted belief that it is such a cultish, and remote concept, that it would be hard for me to believe that the average Joe Smoe would not gloss it over as a thing worth giving any credence to. Even a smart Joe Smoe.
Primitivism is an intellectual extrapolation of over heated education, and romance for lost innocence. Ha.~ ! ~
Most people actually interested in economics have many interesting and abstract theories about it that they are in love with. Primitivism to most of these types may go about as far as putting on bug spray for their golf game. That’s about it.
Funny thing coffee drinkers think everyone drinks coffee.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Lots of ideas are projected onto elites. Who knows if they are true?
I will say that if anybody were truly able to abandon Western life and live as a forager, they would have to be at least as well off as Kevin at Cryptogon (i.e. upper middle class American and clever enough to amass some capital) if not substantially more endowed. It is not an option right now for the average Joe. What springs to mind is that silly movie, The Village, where in order to go back toa 17th Century lifestyle the guy needed to be wealthy/powerful enough to buy a huge compound and pay people not to fly over.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
If it is true that the collapse is engineered by the elite, what should we do?
What if the whole Rebellion is engineered by the elite? What if everything we think we’re doing to be rebellious against the elite is actually playing right into their hands?
But what if we can’t not rebel either because that would play into their hands too? We don’t have the option of doing nothing either, but anything we choose to do would also help them.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Yes, exactly. And is that really happening or going to happen somewhere?
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 pm
it already has. there are many groups who shun society. branch davidians for instance, or some of the more closed off religions like um, the guys with the beards with no moustache………
i have noticed that the only people wo can be “off the grid” successfully have enough energy credits accumilated (money.) and can afford to not need a car. they have thier food flown in.
dennis weaver built a house made of hard packed dirt in the desert some years ago. i thought cool, less building cost. all the materials were there.
wrong.
the house cost over two million dollars.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:05 am
On the subject of population reduction and possible hidden elite agendas, has anyone checked out this recent RI board post, ” Vaccines for poor countries contain hormone disrupters”?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:11 am
this post seems relevant to Kevin’s offering at Cryptogon today. Look for this headline:
Pay No Attention to the General as “Liberals” Launch Green Energy Fund”
September 24th, 2006 at 7:25 am
What exactly defines the “elite” as rich? There are lots of people with money but the word “elite” doesn’t mean rich. It means “superior.”
I’m sorry but I happen to know for a fact rich people are in no way superior to anyone.
Your entire theory is based on false assumptions and therefore pointless.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Now - a rich man or woman who is also superior to others?
That would be a dangerous individual.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
O.K. , I can think of one abstracted theory about collapse that involves this kind of thinking a little maybe, indirectly maybe, where primitivists could perhaps live on the outskirts as rebels, and raiders , post apocalypse style, but that is a stretch.
The one where we are collapsed on purpose by a cabal that controls world political forces for the new world order.
These New World Order people would be super Price System Flunkies that are fascist/Authoritarian/madmen/believers/the ultimate bandits.
This one would be the one that says the Illuminati are behind a secret Cabal that has unconscious, so called foot soldiers, that are the politicos , and religious cranks , that keep the mass`s dumbed down and divided.
That their plan is to humiliate Americans by destroying the economy with globalism , and mining us as a resource base. This would involve devolving into a labor force more of humans than machines , and having vast prison camps of huge proportion for dissidents where they would be worked to death. It might also involve killing say 150 million Americans directly or indirectly in a fairly short time. To many extra consumers for their model.
This charming Idea is kind of a synopsis of James Kunstler and his minions that believe this theorys more or less.
As far as primitivism that played no role in that whole mess of an idea. None, and I now believe that primitivism is only a small, and very abstracted academic cult derived from pseudo-science with some real science principles thrown in.
They envision , these Kunstler people, a vast collapsed society much like what we have now except with a cowed and dispirited, and much more brainwashed ciizendry that would be in a Price System kind of the same as Capitalism or Communism , and because of so called peak oil and other factors , relies on human labor . This idea also includes a huge agrarian labor force that works like a feudal wage/slave system because of the lack of cheap energy.
Is there any thing to this disturbing scenario they draw.? Bits and pieces of some realities play a part here and there as with any other conspiratorial theory.
I will stick with my idea that unfortunately we are surrounded by a bunch of brain washed , and not very creative or ignorant people , that are not as smart as they think they are.
When these people talk about , thinking outside the box, what they are saying is they are in the box.
Kunstler has sold a tremendous amount of books harping and carping on this future construct. He has scared the hell out of many ignorant people.
He has made some good spending money this way.
Like the primitivists he throws just enough stilted science into his mix to draw in the gullible.
He never gets at the real issues.
He is considered alternative, by many, which is a real joke.
I will bring up the point that while peak oil is interesting , and of course was pointed out originally by M.King. Hubbert, one of the writers of the Technocracy Study Course, Peak oil is only an issue in a Price System.
This peak oil idea has been co opted by the end of the worlders for their own disinformation purposes.
Energy would be free in a Technate. We do not need oil either by the way, it is part of the scam society of buying and selling that is the price system .
Of course most people do not know this.
There is enough hydro power between lake Itasca in northern Minnesota on the Mississippi, and Lake Pepin to supply the energy needs of the entire U.S. , not even damning the river but by using water directed through tunnels on water wheels.
This points out the nature of our scam society , which is run by thugs who do not care about much, except to keep the blinders on, and make money.
Are we living in an even remotely creative society.?
No.
We are in a sort of prison camp for the ignorant.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
You seem to think that it would take some massive conspiracy to destroy civilization. It doesn’t. One of the most damning aspects of our system is not only its positive feedback loop of ever-greater complexity, but the fact that the Prisoner’s Dilemna that drives that growth does not allow for any resiliency in the system. It’s that lack of resiliency that Homer-Dixon addresses in The Ingenuity Gap. As the entire world becomes utterly reliant on a single, global network of complexity, that network becomes increasingly fragile, and the probability of a catastrophic, cascading failure that will break the entire system approaches 1.
We’re already to the point where a single downed branch in central Ohio can wipe out electrical power to the entire northeast quadrant of North America. How much more can be effected if systempunkts were chosen deliberately?
This is precisely what terrorist groups are beginning to do, in an “open source war” that John Robb has been following on his excellent blog, “Global Guerrillas.” Obviously, there are already groups interested in causing this kind of cascading failure.
For the elite, this creates a race condition. Whoever causes such a cascade puts himself in a uinquely advantageous position: he knows when “the end of the world” comes. He can make sure he’s prepared, perhaps tucked away on some tropical island (like Leonardo di Caprio’s), or with a ranch outfitted with sustainable power (like George Bush’s Crawford ranch, or any of the similar homes built by rich, influential neoconservatives). What seals the deal is the game of Prisoner’s Dilemna to it: even if you may not want this to happen, even if you may want to continue the game of civilization a few more rounds, the fact that you know others are preparing to make such a move compels you to make the move first. So the one who ends up doing it doesn’t have to be someone who thinks it’s necessarily a good idea: that’s the whole point of Prisoner’s Dilemna, how it compels us to act against what we percieve to be “the greater good.”
Ironic, that the same game of Prisoner’s Dilemna that’s compelled civilization to exponential growth, would also be so intimately tied into its destruction, no?
But the capacity to pull off such a thing is constantly dropping, as we all become more reliant on the network, and the network itself becomes increasingly fragile. So the pool of players grows, which increases the pace of the game. The probability of someone doing it quickly approaches 1.
No conspiracy is needed–the system is so fragile, one needn’t even be exceptionally wealthy to do it even right now, and it will only become easier as civilization becomes more and more fragile.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
There you go again Jason . By having me say , You seem to think it takes a massive conspiracy to to destroy civilization.
We have been through this now. I did not say that. I am just tripping on possible scenarios of collapse. I could give you 10 just off the top of my head, any one of which would clunk us over.
What I have done here is to give a kind of pop culture collapse scenario that certain, perhaps many people believe in.
Remember I have no argument that we are going to hit the wall and crash and burn.~ ! ~
That is a done deal. Just when is the question.
The only way out , or the only ones who have a viable way out are the technocrats.
Your way is not viable. Your way plays into the hands of the powers that be. Your way is part of the divide and conquer strategy of belief system believers.
Mass die off. Oh yea , gonna happen. It does not have to in North America though.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Jesus Christ dude, I wasn’t talking to you–I was answering Tim’s original post. Damn. As for last time, I asked a question–a rhetorical question. As I answered there:
In other words–CHILL. You’re showing some serious reading comprehension problems with these recurring flip-outs.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
There are many educated fools , but no fools that are educated.
Sorry Jason but as stated , I do no buy into your scene. Not at all.
I have been being nice to you. Now I will show you how I feel about your ideas.
The above sums it up. Am I perfectly clear.?
I suppose you could say that I am not a nice guy, when called out intellectually by someone who resorts to underhanded tactics.
Could you please educate me Jason as to how I can improve my comprehension problems.?
I really am in need of education on this as I was unaware of it before, and you have been so kind as to point out my deficit.
Please tell me more as to how to make myself a more well rounded person such as your self.
When you are through no doubt I will be just like you. Thank-you so much for straightening everything out. Any more tips.?
September 25th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Not really, no; “There are many educated fools , but no fools that are educated”? To be “educated” means that someone has had an education. I think you may not have quite said what you meant here, because otherwise, this is a very foolish thing to say.
OK, now, listen closely.
If someone says, “You don’t want a community?” that’s called a question. No answer is implied; it is, in fact, asked to obtain an answer. In this case, it was a rhetorical device because the assumption is that you do want a community.
If someone says, “You don’t want a community,” that’s a declaration, but still not putting words in your mouth. To put words in your mouth, someone would have to say, “Skip said, ‘I don’t want a community.’”
Now, which one of these did I actually write?
Now, can you tell me which one of the above that most resembles?
Now, if I ask you a question, and Tim is reminded of some issues he has with Technocracy, then in what way have I done something “underhanded”? (And by the by, if I have to answer for the violent tendencies of primitivism, I think it’s only fair that you be put on the spot to answer for the anti-social tendencies of Technocracy, don’t you?)
Now, the current case. Here, your reading comprehension problem is a case of total self-absorption. There are lots of people in this thread. I wasn’t talking to you, I was addressing the main article. When I write, “You seem to…” the “you” here is Tim, not you! Even if that were the case, the phrase, “You seem to…” indicates that this is my interpretation of an argument, not the argument as stated explicitly. This is also not putting words in your mouth, as it begins by explicitly stating that this is my interpretation and not the actual argument used. It is at least as valid as your renditions of primitivism, such as before:
So, by comparison, what underhanded tricks are you using here? I didn’t call myself brainwashed, or tricked, or worthless. Would you think I was stark raving mad, or just an idiot, if I took a quote like that to be “you putting words in my mouth”?
So, what should we make of you, when you do it?
September 25th, 2006 at 9:49 am
I don`t know , that is up to you.
I think you are a good spokesperson for your cause. It takes someone who can twist, turn and manipulate in a cunning fashion. Sorry I am not so gullible as to think what you are saying is interesting intellectually.
I do not care for your cause. I also do not think someone other than a brainwashed academic would be on your bandwagon.
If culture collapses you can bet I will try to survive. That would be a sad day when it collapses and we don`t change into a good society. We have the ability to do that.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Wow, talk about ignoring the obvious indictment. You make false accusations about me, and then turn around and continue on about how I “twist, turn and manipulate in a cunning fashion.” Project much?
That must be why there’s so much diversity and debate inside primitivism, and why we tolerate no leaders or primacy. That must be why no two primitivists ever agree 100%. That must be why there are at least as many non-academics as academics among us.
We do. The point you’re missing is that changing into a good society is a particular type of change called a “collapse.” Given that name by the rich and powerful who have a great deal to lose from that kind of change.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:45 am
In case you haven`t noticed the so called rich and powerful seem to do rather well during tough times despite your protests.
In the type of collapse that will happen in a worse case scenario , they will still control people with money or belief systems. A tribe also will have a nasty template of consensus.
You may be able to pilfer some food from their gardens. What a nightmare.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:58 am
In case you haven’t noticed–no, they don’t. In all previous collapses, the upper classes were demolished, and the lower classes improved signifcantly. That’s why our language about collapse is so wrapped up in the language of literary tragedy: because the rich were mortified to see that they were being forced to live the ways they’d once afflicted on others.
That might be a worst case scenario, but it would also be utterly unprecedented in the history of collapse–and we have quite a few examples. In each, the upper classes were wiped out, and the lower classes improved.
But if the money and belief systems the rich depend on for control remain, then it’s not a collapse. It’s some kind of catastrophe, but it’s not a collapse. Collapse is a rapid loss of an established level of complexity. Those monetary and belief systems are elements of complexity. So, it’s kind of like saying that after someone is shot dead, he’ll continue running around pissing on your food–if he’s still doing that, then he didn’t die, did he?
As for “a nasty template of consensus,” I’m not even sure what that means. How does consensus turn nasty, and what makes you think a tribe like the !Kung would be an example of such a thing?
Pilfering food from someone’s garden makes you a thief in a farming society, not a hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gatherers don’t rely on gardens: not their own, nor anyone else’s.