two of the most important stories media wont report on

[Heruka]

ronnewmexico wrote:

So unrestricted populations....this is one consequence. African nations are a major market for genetically modified grains and such to feed their booming populations where normal foodstuffs just cannot produce enough.


Food industry is profit run.

Studies show that the more food in abundance the population in direct relations also increases in proportion. Lions in the wild have fewer cubs in times of food scarcity, in direct relations with prey, and more cubs in time of plenty; the same is true with mammals. You cannot blame human growth on those that want increase in profit and consumption.

[Heruka]

starvation in africa is mostlty driven by western hand in african cold war, politics and religion, my ethopian and kenyan friends have told me so, from first hand, also of the genocide in Congo, and Rawanda.

again the white mans colonial thinking of riding in on white horse to help those lesser than him.




you see in human vision of governance there is the welfare state and the warfare state, they are not mutally exculsive.

[ronnewmexico]

Whoa!!

I am not talking starvation, the African governments support the use of genetically modified foods/grains as they are considered to offer better harvests. I myself thought years ago they did not but was rudely awakened to that fact.

Starvation is a differing issue.

Culture of death??
Why would corporations which benefit greatly by continually booming populations and the profits they garnish by such increases want a culture of death...it makes absolutely no sense. Really it may not be but it sounds like some far right conspiracy theory developed by evangelical christians.

African governments have just entirely differing perspectives on things.DDt for instance is widely used despite known negative consequences...plagues of locusts and diseases spread by insects are just considered to outweigh the negatives.

[Heruka]

Whoa!!

I am not talking starvation, the African governments support the use of genetically modified foods/grains as they are considered to offer better harvests. I myself thought years ago they did not but was rudely awakened to that fact.

actually the UN has coerced by treaty the food security act upon african nations, you see , governments cannot proceed with these issues, so always done through NGO's and Foundations. take a look around you my friend, again research for yourself, dont take my word for it.

[Heruka]

Culture of death??
Why would corporations which benefit greatly by continually booming populations and the profits they garnish by such increases want a culture of death...it makes absolutely no sense.

I have wondered this myself, but if we take the idea that mega, global corporations actually need a collapse to consolidate power, like during Napoleonic wars, the uk Rothschild family exploited the war, to their benefit to drive down stock price, buy up all devalued price on the basis of disinformation, only to have market rise on true news, we can see a little of how power is gained.

Depopulation works on same principle.

the act of war, whether a hard kill (tanks, planes, bombs bullets, etc ) is to the benefit of those that finance manufacture it, or a soft kill (food source, water supply, medicine etc) is of no concern to those that gain from both sides of the welfare, and warfare state of governance. Corporatism and governance in equal parts is classic fascism my friend.

[ronnewmexico]

Well to my opinion there is some truth to both statements. The shock doctrine speaks to the ability of governments/corporations to use crisis of any sort to manufacturer societal change to their benefit. Wars may certainly be a part of that. Wholescale killing or death as such means....no not at all. Part of the wars and any crisisis is societal disruption...that is the goal the disruption not the killing in itself.

However a culture of death as in manfacturing population control issues killing to intensify such actions.....that's pipe dream stuff. That's blending the real with the unreal, and forming a resultant unreal result. The death is incidental to the societal disruption. Certainly war involves killing but again the goal is not the death or the killing it is to produce societal disruption to allow for change to corporate benefit.

Population control is not even remotely related to the principles of the shock doctrine. Nor is war population control.

AS to GMO's of course the US government is going to seek means and legislation to serve corporate interest globally.The US gov is all about corporate interest....there is no secret in that. Rex Lugar....sure advancing corporate interest.
The idea however that these are being hoisted upon African Governments against their will....not true. The Gates foundations help for instance can be refused by any nation that cares to not participate with them. Is the foundation working for corporate interest...most probably. But the African governments may or may not support GMO's. A few don't....most do. Gates charity is supporting the propogation of GMO's......no surprise there.

Are the poor innocent African governments being forced to use such things.....generally no. They want them. As with DDT a known cancer causer with prolonged environmental destrucive aspect....yet in Africa INdia and other places where it has not produced a resistance....generally they are used.

[KeithBC]

I would like to see sterility be a compulsory feature of all GM products.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

there are many studies about the accumulative effects of these GMO foods, on organ failure and infertility and sterile increases in mammals sperm counts and so on, ....

those calling for it [emphasis added - KeithBC] are not immune from it, unless your are elite who has traditional farming and husbandry food resources, ie like prince charles.

I understand the objection - that it forces farmers to be dependent on the big M - and I do not support it if it is the sole "benefit" of the GM seeds. However, GM organisms that have other engineered attributes, like inherent insecticides, for example, should not be able to reproduce into the general environment.


Om mani padme hum
Keith

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802


Aug 2 (Reuters) - Pancreatic tumor cells ...

Explain please the significance of quoting my post in your two posts that had nothing whatsoever to do with mine.

Are you under the impression that I am "calling for" GM products? I apologize if you assumed that, but I am most definitely not. All I said was that, if we are going to have them whether we like them or not, they ought to be sterile.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Heruka]

hello Keith, i believe your posited position is , (given that I have accepted a level of basic ignorance on my part) that gmo to be sterile in the environment, i.e. non self replicating through pollination, either cross or species specific for natures sake.
my position was about gmo's accumulative incremental ism on infertility by consumption in the mammalian species, which man and female-kind is not divorced, separate or different from; (even from a faith based religious self deniability neurosis).

cross wires so to speak.

unless I'm reading you wrong and you feel a program of infertility in humans is a good thing? Then I read you correct?

either way, its not my significance or position to defend.

[KeithBC]

unless I'm reading you wrong and you feel a program of infertility in humans is a good thing?

No, I do not think a program of infertility in humans is a good thing. I was advocating sterility for the GMOs themselves, not for humans.

So, your remarks really had nothing to do with mine. Quoting my post was therefore pointless and confusing.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Heruka]

However a culture of death as in manfacturing population control issues killing to intensify such actions.....that's pipe dream stuff. That's blending the real with the unreal, and forming a resultant unreal result. The death is incidental to the societal disruption. Certainly war involves killing but again the goal is not the death or the killing it is to produce societal disruption to allow for change to corporate benefit.

hi ron

if we look at any power structure, even in its most subtle forms, it appears sadomasochistic in essence,( not in sexual sense [although it may play a part at some level ]) the servile whom may not like his servitude at first, may over time even come to like it his bondage, and please the master in control. the servant wishes to please the master, and despises his underlings as well, and seeks to dominate those lower than him/herself. so we can see how the basic system is in place. now this conditioning is learnt, it does not appear in mans nature to be this way, so some type of learned helplessness must be rolled out and at play, an architect in design, social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning pavlovian engineering etc. so we have the angle of social structure, a scientific design by those that want to be on top etc. social Darwinism or the right of might, natural selection, the code word for eugenics.





(continue later)

[Mr. G]

[ronnewmexico]

Heruka..yes nice to talk with you as well again.

On a philosophical basis I disagree on this point..."please the master in control. the servant wishes to please the master, and despises his underlings as well, and seeks to dominate those lower than him/herself. so we can see how the basic system is in place. now this conditioning is learnt, it does not appear in mans nature to be this way, "

Nothing we know, being Buddhists.... sans awareness and cognitive function perhaps and consequence of thoses things combined with emptiness mileau are natural to man in a ultimate context. So in a ultimately considered context I agree.

In a conventional context I disagree. and this may serve as the basis of disagreement on many points. Humanity as we know it to be...is not very pretty. We do indeed, as humans, act that way, in even very undeveloped or primitive cultures, which would not be subject to the criticisms that Huxley mentions . The smile while much revered in the human world in the monkey world is strictly a gesture of submission. While we are not certainly monkeys we do indeed suffer from the same social constraints and heirarchies that such societal necessity involved. Society by its nature involved heirarchy and quite unpleasent ways of concieving and doing things.

So basically, ultimately yes, I agree that is learned behavior, but in a conventional sense all human seem to learn to do that with very little variance comparitively, suchly it may be in a conventional sense a human way of looking and doing things. Most normal for humans to act that way.

Humans to my view......generally suck. Which is why to my view we must generally have to tilt so much to the side of learing compassion and such, to balance our tendencies to work against those things...naturally. Compassion is naturally present to my view with awareness nakedly surmised, but add human to the quation....and it invariably disappears. Human love for child family and all the rest...even the stupid amongst us do that, the animals, which shows it to be generally ego or self enhancement basis, not other based... as compassion should be, to reveal as true compassion.

It is like the neocons, though this is totally a different subject, but it reminded me a bit of this... thinking all humans are suitable for democratic institutions, just by virtue of being human.
No firmly not. Some like in eastern europe and parts of africa will elect leaders who committ genocide against others......that is what the majority in those places want....genocide. Don't think for a second they do or did not. So humans may be taught to these things of compassion and other, but not taught they tend to revel in the ignorance and propogate the ignorance. This would explain why those who see humans who hold this noble view of humanity have to always invariably find a enemy who caused these humans to act in such a bad fashion. In ruwanda it is not the Hitsu Titus who murdered the other with impunity it is the ...ameicans who did that thing as external element. It is not the serbs who murdered others...it is the americans. It is not africans who want gmo's...it is the americans who foist it upon them.

No sorry, the americans did and do very many things, as did the eurpoeans before them, the armies of alexander the great, rome, and on and on and all are partially responsible but it is the elements of human ignorance which pervade humanity in all its aspect who weilded the machetes, who several limbs and heads of child father mother son and daughter in Ruwanda, not the americans. Contributory...sure. But that contribution only worked in contributution to other element, that called....human nature. So nature, conventional nature of humans...sucks. They suck.

This is perhaps why the gods tend to hate them and disregard them and the demons bedevil them so much.... but that is another aside, and not relevent.

Humans suck. If you hold the inverse you are always invariable left looking for that specific cause who caused these people to act in such a fashion. And if you found but one example when such outside element was not found you would be left with theory.....quite disproved. Many many situations of human fault by nature, conventional nature exist at this very moment, not even considering the past. Circumstances exasperate human nature they do not create it(in a conventional sense).

This is why liberals and conservatives are exactly equal....they hold that view on human nature neocons and bleeding hearts.....as being pure and generous by nature. Humans are not.....they suck. Democracy and anarchy are simply not applicable for most ignorant humans. Educated....only them both may be reasonable.

As another aside...just heard emerging market populations becoming more affluent consume on average 25 percent the amount of protein foods(generally beef) than those not. Each pound of beef is created by ten to twelve pounds of equilivent grain consumption by animals. There are probably at least a million per month in China and India alone making this economic transition presently. The impact of that....immeasurable. There is simply no hope for human on this particular planet. Humans again..suck.
And this to exemplify will cause much suffering economic environmental total destruction.....not because of outside agent but because stupid humans want more protein to eat. A few don't very few. So stupid they cannot even stop fouling their own nest. No hope for stupid humans. We visit here, and this helps us spiritually... but to buy into their self honed notions of nobility or goodness....quite mistaken.

[Heruka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Z2ag8F ... re=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly_djozC ... re=related

[Mr. G]

[ronnewmexico]

Well differing opinions on things..

Speaking sci-fi....the first matrix(not the second theistically framed one).....it is stated basically....we gave them first a perfect world with no problem no difficulties.....they did not want that. So we produced this second place....this they liked.

With self concept the varying difficulties of any and all sort, are invigorated virtually from imagining into solidity with suffering and harm as major aspect inevitably as....

those things most greatly affirm existance of self, and for no reason other. So whenever self appears it will have the characteristic of harm and suffering as predominant aspect. That is how it always is and it can be no other.

Some shamans state there is a exterior being of sorts that glommed onto our human type
form and inspires this way of looking at things to then eat the emotional responses to these situations we create out of nothing. I would suppose if such was the case it would make no difference. If such did exist we would have them so intigrated into what we consider to be us...they would be virtually indistinguishable.
Regardless we must grab this self by the throat wretch it from our sembelence and throw it far far away....it does not really exist so it weighs virtually nothing so this may be done. Then we end the tendency the apparent inherant tendency we have to create harm and cause suffering. Yes every suffering, not just the suffering we cause in a pragmatic sense to others countries and such but to ourselves with our cancers, our diseases that which seperates us and devolves our bodies with one result....reinforcement of self concept. To aspire for self we must have the gradient of superficially considered no self.....that self which may be destroyed by disease and other aspect. If we see for a second what is real self, we find it does not exist and thusly this self that may be providing disease and such to affirm its virtual existance does not any longer. We create the other envisioned circumstance of death disease and all to affirm not deny self. To contrast in such a envisioning what is to what may be thought to be. Of course we find nothing of the sort occurs in reality, but we never allow that possibility so close are these things of harm considered to us. So close is our self to us.

Till then any exercise or expectation of removing harm from the human condition is doomed to failure.
Human suck, they really do. Of course we must engage in social action and work for the right things but this should not confuse us as to enemy or ultimate means to engage the enemy...that which is causeing us harm.

It is not other or america or this or that....it is us, human as we are....we suck.
If you see other you are really not looking....to my view.

[Heruka]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 54149.html

Out for the count: Why levels of sperm in men are falling
But the key question now is to identify the relevant lifestyle and environmental factors.

This is proving tricky. Obesity, for instance, is a growing problem and it has been linked with reproductive problems in both men and women. One study has also indicated that overweight pregnant women tend to produce sons with poor semen quality. But is it being fat that is the cause, or the environmental chemicals stored in fat?

There has been a lot of interest in chemicals in the environment, especially those that can either mimic female sex hormones – oestrogenic chemicals – or block male sex hormones, specifically testosterone which plays a critical role in stimulating the development of Sertoli cells in the womb. So far, the Seveso study provides the clearest link between human foetal development, low sperm counts and prenatal exposure to an environmental chemical. But the dioxin concentrations from this industrial accident were exceptionally high.

http://www.getalife.net.au/mag/chem2_html


Nowadays, the adverse effects of chemicals on animal species doesn’t often hit the headlines, but there was a worrying UK report, released in March 2002, which linked high levels of oestrogenic chemicals to feminization in 50% of male fish in lowland English rivers. A proportion of these “intersex” fish had developed eggs in their testes, some had female reproductive tracts, 10% were completely sterile, and a further 25% had damaged sperm.1 The contamination was traced back to water pumped from sewage treatment plants into the rivers. High levels of ethinyl oestradiol (an active ingredient of the contraceptive pill) were blamed, but there were also high levels of oestrogenic compounds derived from the bacterial breakdown of detergents and personal care products in these treatment plants. As metropolitan areas tend to depend upon recycled or treated water for their drinking supply, such contamination raises serious concern.

[Heruka]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

Bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA, is an organic compound with two phenol functional groups used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, along with other applications.

Known to be estrogenic since the mid 1930s, concerns about the use of bisphenol A in consumer products were regularly reported in the news media in 2008 after several governments issued reports questioning its safety, thus prompting some retailers to remove products containing it from their shelves. A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised further concerns regarding exposure of fetuses, infants, and young children.

Reproductive system and sexual behavior research
A series of studies made in 2009 found:

Mouse ovary anomalies from exposure as low as 1 µg/kg, concluded that BPA exposure causes long-term adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects if exposure occurs during prenatal critical periods of differentiation.[76]
Neonatal exposure of as low as 50 µg/kg disrupts ovarian development in mice.[77][78][79]
Neonatal BPA exposition of as low as 50 µg/kg permanently alters the hypothalamic estrogen-dependent mechanisms that govern sexual behavior in the adult female rat.[80]
Prenatal exposure to BPA at levels of (10 μg/kg/day) affects behavioral sexual differentiation in male monkeys.[81]
In placental JEG3 cells in vitro BPA may reduce estrogen synthesis.[82]
BPA exposure disrupted the blood-testis barrier when administered to immature, but not to adult, rats.[83]
Exposure to BPA in the workplace was associated with self-reported adult male sexual dysfunction.[84]
A rodent study, funded by EPA and conducted by some of its scientists, concluded that, compared with ethinyl estradiol, low-dose exposures of bisphenol A (BPA) showed no effects on several reproductive functions and behavioral activities measured in female rats.[85] That study was criticized as flawed for using polycabornate cages in the experiment and the claimed resistance of the rats to estradiol[86] but that claim was contested by the authors and others[87].
A 2010 study with mice concluded that BPA exposure in utero leads to permanent DNA alterations in sensitivity to estrogen.

[Heruka]

However a culture of death as in manfacturing population control issues killing to intensify such actions.....that's pipe dream stuff. That's blending the real with the unreal, and forming a resultant unreal result.

the foundation work for the scientific tyranny was laid down in world war two. the allies became the heirs of the experimentations. one group went to the east, communist east germany russia etc , the other group went west, usa, argentina etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip


In early 1950, legal US residency for some of the Project Paperclip specialists was effected through the US consulate in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico; thus, Nazi scientists legally entered the US from Latin America.[5]:226[10]

During later decades, the wartime activities of some Project Paperclip scientists were investigated. Arthur Rudolph was deported in 1984, and then exonerated by West Germany[17]. Similarly, Georg Rickhey was acquitted of war crimes. Hubertus Strughold was implicated in Nazi human experimentation; the aeromedical library at Brooks Air Force Base was named after him in 1977. However, it was later renamed because documents from the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal linked Strughold to medical experiments in which inmates from Dachau were tortured and killed.[18]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731



After Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, Douglas MacArthur became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupation. MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America with their research on biological warfare.[7] American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail.[23]

The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. They had conducted small-scale human experimentation on their citizens but not on such a large scale, and not with prisoners of war. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.[24]

[Heruka]

It is like the neocons, though this is totally a different subject, but it reminded me a bit of this... thinking all humans are suitable for democratic institutions, just by virtue of being human.






This is why liberals and conservatives are exactly equal....they hold that view on human nature neocons and bleeding hearts.....as being pure and generous by nature. Humans are not.....they suck. Democracy and anarchy are simply not applicable for most ignorant humans. Educated....only them both may be reasonable.

Exile
Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Bolshevik party in 1927 and exiled him from Russia in 1929. Trotsky's constant goal was to gain control of world Communist leadership and implement more radical programs. Trotsky formed a loose organization of German followers in 1930 but failed either to defeat or take control of the German Communist Party. Indeed, his supporters nearly everywhere were outmaneuvered and defeated by the Soviet Communists, and lingered in numerous countries as a far-left party with little influence. Intellectuals who joined his movement were put off by Trotsky's dogmatism and his intolerance of the least deviation from his ideas.

After spending time in Turkey and France, Trotsky settled in Mexico in 1937. On August 20, 1940 Spanish communist Ramón Mercador, acting on orders from Stalin, murdered Trotsky with an ice pick in Trotsky's Mexico City apartment.

Permanent revolution
Trotsky's most influential idea was the notion of permanent revolution. Drawing on the experiences of the 1905 Russian Revolution, Trotsky maintained that revolution would spread worldwide after the international proletariat's aid to the Russian workers, who in turn would "export" the revolution abroad. By contrast Stalin rejected Trotsky’s theory and presented his own thesis on socialism in one country (Russia) in 1926. Trotsky asserted that the unification of developed and backward countries in the worldwide operations of capitalism created a combination of separate and uneven stages of development in backward countries like Russia, permitting the Russian proletariat the capability of carrying out a revolution but at the same time requiring the permanent extension of revolution in time and space until the extinction of class distinctions.

American influence
American Trotskyites were political activists in the 1930s who follows the teachings of Trotsky and opposed Stalin's version. All of them broke with Trotsky, and many became conservatives, such as Max Eastman, James Burnham and Seymour Martin Lipset.


Paleoconservatives, who dislike Neoconservatism intensely, have argued that it emerged from Trotskyite theories, especially the notion of permanent revolution. There are four fundamental flaws in the paleoconservatives' attack: most of the neoconservatives were never Trotskyites; none of them ever subscribed to the right-wing Socialism of Max Shachtman; the assertion that neoconservatives subscribe to "inverted Trotskyism" is misleading; and neoconservatives advocate democratic globalism, not permanent revolution.[2]

Historiography
Western commentators on Trotsky generally fall into four categories, aside from orthodox Trotskyists, who have generally been concerned with preserving his ideas rather than developing them. First, the pro-Soviets oppose him and his ideas, especially on the issue of socialism in one country. The second group, described as sympathetic critics, has examined Trotsky's stands and while generally in agreement, has commonly found his views mistaken on three points in particular: his conversion to Leninism, his failure to move against Stalin in 1923, and his characterization of Stalinism as a workers' state. A third group of commentators has viewed Trotsky skeptically, an unlikely alternative to Stalin. The realist group, in contrast, faults Trotsky for failure to realize the true nature of events after 1917. After glasnost in the 1980s Trotsky was rehabilitated in Russia as an important leader and some of his writings have been published.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[ronnewmexico]

Yes....very interesting and informative.

My basic point being there is a similiar human nature view to both, and actually to very many political theories in the present age. I would contend the notion humans are benign or tend to the postive resounds in most all modern political theorm. The oppostion tends to the nihilist frame of thinking which leads to no government at all or strict anarchy perhaps, but has not much in the way of organized thought, excepting perhaps the pragmatic approach to things which I would contend is addressed in the initiation of the american constitution. A system which had to work as their backs were to the wall and thusly emphesized the working of things as opposed to the ideology of things. Hence the introduction of notions such as individual liberty(in a country which could not enforce other) religious liberty(in a country that could not have seperate state governments and survive as that would be the consequence of state majority support of particular religion), and rule of law to balance the authortarian rule without law(as the means of authority by force were simply not available).

I could enumerate how this reflects a pragmatic document as opposed to a ideological document but that could go on for pages and pages. Suffice it to state it is. The references to other humans as part humans only such as slaves indicates conclusively no grand notions of higher ideology were behind this document and way of doing things. It was simply the only way of governance that could work in that circumstance.

A pragmatist political view may verse neither a postive nor negative view on humanity(though personally they may hold view) but a priority of function. This element is present in the general american politic.
The people tend to be very idealistic and biased in view but backs to the wall and they become strict pragmatists. More so perhaps than other populations, so they present with potential for variablity. Without backs to the wall however as with most all govenment inspiration and politic....they revert quickly to ideological basis which favors the benign notion of human nature. The theistically framed politic involve humans as being faulted but by devine inspiration the end result is a total product of human which tends to the positive....so that also is in end product a postive view on humanity.

That all aside there is little in their view to favor restriction on the ability of humans to produce other humans. That notion could be related to a nihilist framed politic but these peoples and the ideology they represent are by no means nihilists. People that have a positive view of humanity tend always....towards increased humanity. That is part and parcel of the ideology. Humans are more of the good than any other...we must propogate the good, on a ideological basis.

So such cannot hold for sterility or such means. Sterility as unintended consequence of genetic engineering and other issues such as radiological purification of foods certainly. This is a direct consequence however, not of ideological inception, but of circumstance, need for more food, and profit motive as sole motive, producing as is always inclinded to produce with those two main movers...a faulted product.

So it is a misread of real circumstance or situation presented to be intended circumstance. Those that are considered to be the movers and shakers are considered to be far wiser than they are.
This is consequence of the american way of thinkling that affirms their foundational ideology. In america a rich person is rich solely because she/he is way more intelligent. In a asian or buddhist context a rich person may be rich for that reason but karma or effect on circumtances is far more important.


So in america a rich person can devise incredibly complex scheme to dominate and control. In asia a rich person is rich only by circumstance and can not generally. This is why in america a rich person of means and qualification is always the political leader, and in asia historically that is simply not the case in about half of the situtations.

The circumstance.... how things really are...speaks to the latter. The rich came within a hairsbreath of all trade stopping which would have led directly to military rule and advancement of government not for the corporation, if the economic crisis had no remediation. That was not intended. Certainly once it presented they effected to advance their agenda but it did not precipitate the crisis; their agenda. It was auxiliary to it.

What precipitated it was their ignorance, the ignorance of the movers and shakers.

But you cannot ever pursuade a american such is not the case their movers and shakers are basically inept and stupid....it just cannot be done.
So we have elaborate theories as to how such can happen and be the subject of vast vast thinking and complex strategy.

They arie idiots....I cannot convince you of this but know it to be fact.

One brief example..Sanders the great chicken king. He did not establish a great chicken empire until his late 50's, prior to that he was basically a failed businessman. Did he suddenly become very much more intelligent...no, heck no, no chance under the sun. Circumstance abounded which led his circumstance to precipitate in that direction. There are literally thousands of examples that is but one. The american ideal on such things, the rich being way way more intelligent...is a product of ignorant thought, and faulted, butr ingrained into their psyche.

They, the rich, take advantage of circumstance as the shock doctrine explains but have little excepting very basic forms, such as overt agressions/wars and governmental dominance by force, to elicit circumstance. They simply are to stupid to do so. They are ham and eggers in a fortuitous circumstance like Brahma perhaps thinking he is creating all around him by his greatness, convincing all around him he is the one, and great amd having them worship his greatness when all along...it is his circumtance and he, he is.....quite stupid. In past life he was compassionate and thoughtful that is all. Now he is quite stupid and wants peoples to worship him by that name or other.

The rich are similiar....not for a instant can they allow it is but circumstance so they create sociatal edifice to affirm their mistaken notion of superiority. And americans buy that false notion hook line and sinker.

Pragmaticism if thought about, is actually the middle way. Faulted political ideology and notions such as human goodness aboud in theism and the politic they represent. Nihilism which may portend a negative view of humanity, as mentioned, is little represented. Nihilist fail to approach the politic most commonly, it being usually reflected only personally.

I would contend the buddhist view.... not the american buddhist view.... represents the thinking or philsophy that humans suck....generally they do. Americans due to ingrained things upon their psyche can almost never hold that as ideology; excepting in a personal sense as nihilist in america do...I will watch tv 23 hours a day as nothing matter....or in stupid form. I will not vote nothing matters....a stupid nihilism which nihilism only rarely excepts as it is founded in a faulted concept.
And most commony the thinking, humans suck is equated in a american way with nihilism and the arguments against humans suck is always framed in the personal nihilist context. As that is how american perceive that.

But that is all aside of the truth of the issue....humans really truly do suck. In a personal way they may not at all as in a mothers love of her child or some such. But ultimately considered.....they really truly suck. So any political philosophy to be correct must stem from correct initial assumption which must be since it is the only correct assumption.....human suck. Global Buddhist way of saying humans suck in polite asian fashion......ignorance, we are all ignorant,which is politely certainly true. Within buddhism excepting the american fashion is not found generally that humans do not suck. WE are all equal in our suckiness is about as far as it goes towards inherant goodness.