You know how people talk about "deep state" and it's either a tinfoil about Jews, or disregarded as rightoid paranoia?
Well, here it is. The true "deep state".
It's honestly hilarious because this shit is right in the open, and no one wants to talk about it.
Lenin has written about this kinda stuff more than hundred years ago. It has been obvious to communists but the capitalist media turn a predictable blind eye to this.
Reminds me of how Obama's cabinet was like 80% former citibank execs.
But remember - corruption is what them asiatics do. The state-dep told me so!
I believe everything the state department says, but I oppose the deep state.
I actually have seen and heard American right-wingers mention the Black Rock deepstate, but they twist it to mean that they're pushing the woke agenda onto everything
Not unexpected. Their ideology prevents them from understanding class struggle. And capitalist owned media (which is near damn all media) purposefully amplifiers these voices, so that we point out the existence of such international capital and how deep it all runs - we are branded as being the same as Qanon, Pizzagate, et al
The shadow government isn't that shadowy really. The truth is a quick wikipedia article away.
Given the state of the education system that's a bit too far away for most
Why bother lobbying people when you can just insert yourself directly into government? Market efficiency baby
Remember Lenin writing about merging state with monopolies? Here it is.
I’m surprised actually, why aren’t they ancient? Is it because they need new blood to introduce new ideas that old folks wouldn’t be as quick to adopt?
The reason US politicians are ancient is because they're just there to provide a veneer of democracy for the hoi polloi. They're just figureheads who don't make any actual decisions.
Genuine question, how does them being old make it seem more democratic? Wouldn’t it look better if the politicians were a similar age to the voters? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just a bit confused
Oh it doesn't, but I don't think it matters because you don't get genuine options. They just give you a set of canned option to vote for, and that's all you get. As Marx put it: “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”
I agree, I’m just surprised that for their own sake that they don’t choose younger people to seem more representative of the US population
I don't think it is the sole reason but they ARE representative of the voting US population. The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.
In my country, voting is almost entirely the domain of the elderly. I can count on one hand the number of people in my age range I know that actually go out and vote.
I think there is also some portion of belief that "this person has a lot of experience so must be better suited for the job".
“The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.“ Ahhhh, that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, I didn’t put 2 and 2 together, but that seems a lot more obvious now that you mentioned it
I guess it is because they need to have a long career in politics to appear experienced. Well, they really do need to have experience to ratfuck everyone else and to build connections because particular politicians are a tools to ruling class and it don't really care who is the one doing its bidding, so politicians do need to compete among themselves. Also the more ossified bureocracy is, the more ancient cadavers are getting propped by the vitrue of having more accumulated ties inside the bureocracy than the younger ones, that's why US has Biden now and that's why catholics had most of their popes.
Also name is a brand. People, especially content liberals and conservatives, are more likely to vote on someone they always heard than someone new.
That’s very true actually, a lot easier to have a political dynasty that changes nothing if you have an older experienced politician giving cred to the rest of the family. For example we wouldn’t have FDR if not for Teddy Roosevelt, we wouldn’t have had Hillary running if Bill didn’t win in the 90s, etc.
Yeah, I also don't really understand what the OP is getting at with the age thing in the title. If anything, it would seem like the actual rulers (pictured) should be more likely to be ancient vampires than the the politicians chosen for the facade of democracy.
Exactly! Like reality doesn’t fall into my own preconceived notions obviously, but in this particular instance I’m very confused
In theory: these capitalist types are allowed "proper" hereditary system. Scions taking over after the elders decide they want to chill. Meanwhile, the politicians are just tools. And if you have an old hammer that does the job, why would you waste money on a new one? One that may not be exactly to your preferences too. When the tool is completely broken, then you toss it away and grab a new one.
Well, to be fair, it was always run by the interest of the capital, that is the nature of the system itself, the role of the state is to protect private property after all, the shocking thing is the brazen way they are doing it lately, usually the system likes to hide this shit and pretend that democracy means something in capitalism, but now this is as explicit as it comes.
Yeah exactly, they're not even trying to hide the way the system works anymore.
Black Rock also unfortunately invests in China, so I caution against... I don't know what for once.
Blackrock invests primarily in the private sector, things like evergrande, the property speculation market, and the luxury brand sector, it's one of reasons why China isn't bailing out property companies like Evergrande, since BlackRock has deep investment in these speculator companies. The hope is that these companies will declare bankruptcy so that the Chinese government can nationalise them for greater public use, another fault I hope china corrects soon.
I think what was meant is China allowing a foreign investment corp such as Blackrock to become involved in housing speculation in the first place.
I was meaning the speculator market companies which grew far too large during china's development, and had the attention of predatory western investment companies which wanted to strengthen these companies. A fault to china's goal to prosperity as these companies which were largely ignored, and allowed to fester into the tumors which blight china's economy, a fault which needs correction. Something which china's doing by nationalising them after they fail.
George Soros said it was a "tragic mistake" so you can rest easily now
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
