reply to post by Jukiodone
I agree with a lot of what you say there. There certainly are conspiracies, plural, and "them" probably exists- not just one "them" but several of
them, each with their own agenda. And there's bound to be some discord within a conspiracy- find me any organization anywhere that doesn't have a
guy who isn't in charge but wants to be.
What I have concluded is that for the vast majority if not all of the likely players, invasions of Russian or NATO troops, massive weapons
confiscations, concentration camps, and all the james bond villain sounding stuff would be against their interests. Having a fractured 1% vs the 99%
is like having 3 sharks and a whale at a card table- if everyone goes all out to get all of his money for themselves, they're gonna scare him away.
The sharks have got to agree that the guy is gonna give his money away and each should play it cool and take what he can get.
I have yet to finish hammering out the details of my scenario to post, but in the broad strokes what I have concluded is that if I had 20 billion
dollars which would put me pretty far up the list, I'm still nowhere near dominance but i've got too much to lose to make that long leap to absolute
ruler of the world, so my first priority is just to keep my dollars/property valuable, my second is to increase my standing relative to the next guy
on the billionaire list, and my third is to figure out a way to buy whatever i lack in life that isn't actually for sale (popularity, respect, self
esteem, a sense of meaning, etc).
I've concluded that the way to accomplish all of this is manipulating society. I've gotta maintain consumer confidence, maintain a popular desire
for the things i have, advertise my products, overshadow my competitors, increase my overall control and have it all mean something in the end.
How can I do that with 20 billion dollars (20 billion that i can't even spend all of if I want to stay rich)?
Well there's government- its lasting, esteemed, meaningful, and can require people to do what I say- but I don't have enough money to dominate it to
the exclusion of my competitors, and the people overthrow governments sometimes- its just not the best way.
Then there are the poor. They're motivated, there are tons of them, its a humanitarian cause- I can help the poor and then they'll have money and be
my friends, even idolize me, and spend their money with me... but the poor are neither trusting nor trustworthy where the rich are concerned. I
can't undermine big money without hurting myself in some ways, and if it goes too far they might revolt and take my stuff along with everyone
There's religion, but it's day seems to be nearing dusk.
Then it hit me- families. Families have everything I need. There are a lot of them, they have resources, they have their own grass roots
infrastructure, they have easy to relate to priorities that unite them, you can rally people in their name, but the people you get that way are less
likely to form a People's Army, and it's a nice feel-good cause to be working with.
What would I do with whatever demographic I had chosen? I'd market to them of course. The idea is to dominate a consumer demographic, then move that
demographic to increase its own power in the market in a way that no individual could have achieved, thereby creating a rising tide that lifts your
boat more than the boats of your competitors. There's also an aspect of predicting the future by creating it there.
Simple analogy: I own hot topic, my competitor owns the gap. Everytime some goth freshman gets thrown in a trashcan, I lose a customer. I can protect
my bottom line, get free advertising, increase my social relevance, and take spending money away from my competitor's customers if I can get a
thousand dollar fine placed on bullying. To accomplish this goal, do I buy Fox News, do i buy a congressman, or do I buy a website for some angry
mothers who are already pushing in the direction I want to go?
It seems to me that politically/economically the conspiracies speak for themselves- putting myself in the shoes of a conspirator makes our
political/media climate a little easier to digest. But it doesn't seem to add much weight to a grander scale of conspiracy.