Dear Anthonyve,

The article does not prove a conspiracy. It just notes a fact. Except for very small assemblies oligarchies always dominate and rule. In capitalist societies it is those who control the money. In monarchies it is the court and those who support the court. In theocracies it is the religious hierarchies. In ideological states it is those who dominate the party. In militaristic states it is the general staff. Democracy where every citizen has an equal voice does not and cannot exist.

No single person can rule alone, and democracy is never a reality. Whatever the nominal system is called the reality is that we are either part of the ruled or part of the oligarchy who rule.

Yes, David, you're quite right, the article doesn't prove - or even suggest, really - a conspiracy, but, at least, for me, it did make the notion somewhat easier to digest.
Because, as sonofgloin posited in an earleir post, why not? Why wouldn't thy conspire?
To which, I am now thinking, my response would be, why not indeed?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthony,archies

Why not conspire? Conspiracies are people acting in common to serve a comon goal. Within the hierarchies there are various competing tendencies backing certain individuals, certain modes of operation etc. Members of hierarchies generally seek to further their own interest and only secondarily the interests of the hierarchy.

Conspiracies assume people are acting in concert. That's not the way the world works. The ruled act in concert because those who don't are made to suffer.

The hierarchy is a different kettle of fish. There was a toast in the British officers mess, "Here's to a long and bloody war." Long and bloody wars serve neither the interests of the army nor of the empire. However, long and bloody wars give occasion for daring deeds and high rank for the survivors.

David,
Yesterday I would have agreed with you, and today I still cannot disagree with you.
However, I have moved somewhat from my - previous and relative - certainty.
That's all I'm saying.
I was the one who in an earlier comment on this thread, adhered to the view from my own military days, that when confronted with the choice between a conspiracy and a screw up, bet on a screw up.
All I'm saying now is that I can make room for the possibility that I might lose the bet.
Anhtony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthony,

Wait a while. I may disagree with myself.

Anthony I am not trying to wet your pocket.
Not in me to do so.
I actually am pleased to see you re look at the issue.
Because I have come to respect your intellect greatly.
I note a personal view, communism and Socialism is no different in letting individuals prosper unfairly.
Thoughts, is North Korea a conspiracy?
Was Stalinist Russia blinded by untruths/therefore a conspiracy?
Have any political party ever said one thing while thinking the opposite for its own reasons? is that in part conspiracy.
Have any of us thought about why private banking can use and profit by it, funds they do not have?