zlacker

Yes indeed. But aren't these all discrete examples, rather than a centralised deliberate process of manipulation of the proletariat?

e.g. corporate lobbying clearly exists and operates, and may be nefarious, but is broadly directed towards the corporate entity's gain, rather than dividing and conquering the masses.

>>mft_+(OP)
You are still not truly understanding Epstein Island, how is that NOT a centralised hub to subvert democratic processes to divide masses? (Not just the USA…)

Conspiracies are a very common part of business law, people just do not accept that it can happen in the political realm.

>>graubl+Y5
Okay, let's roll with the idea that Epstein was somehow involved with (or working for) a country or its intelligence service - which is the commonest conspiracy theory I've read.

So sure, that's probably blackmail and subversion (via kompromat on prominent politicians or business people) in favour of that country's interests, but again that's insolated and self-interested (i.e. in the interests of the particlar country in question). But it's not centralised 'divide and conquer the proletariat' in favour of the (ultra-)bourgeois, which was my original point.

I'm not saying that such things don't exist; I'm just arguing they're not as centralised and targeted at creating divides and unrest amongst the people as the original post suggests, as usually that's not a tactic that results in a beneficial outcome for the group involved. Epstein's putative handlers weren't going "nah, forget infiltrating the mil-tech sector in your country; what we're really interested in is a few headlines about immigration in the UK".

>>mft_+Cz
The goal is to create compliant leaders who will not rock the boat too much. These compromised leaders cannot provide their own input into policy decisions, bypassing democratic institutions (elections).

I don't understand how you don't see this as textbook conspiracy or centralised?