Dissent is squelched by the law of large numbers.
Activists are pacified by the (often mistaken) sense that they have exerted influence, and that there is nothing more to be done.
Arenas are created wherein unadorned and immediate peer pressure encourages the enshrinement of consensus, coordinating action, with dominant members positioned to veto undesirable consensus, so that the will of the dominant members is implemented without their issuing explicit or accountable orders or proclamations, and without the sense that there is a corporeal center to the will imposed on the members.
The accountability of any individual member is reduced, and the actual command hierarchy is camouflaged. Dominant members largely sidestep vulnerability to direct attack, and in many cases, can more freely exercise authority to their own ends.
Dominant members gather intelligence on the stances of other members, and on those the other members are responsible for or represent.
Organizational change and action are retarded, which with the aforementioned intelligence, allows dominant members of the establishment to anticipate political events, and exploit or protect against them through more agile non-committee channels.
The continuity of the status quo power structure is safeguarded by redundancy and fault tolerance.
Many of these common features of the committee system are clear weaknesses. Some of its gravest weakness are immediate corollaries of the features enumerated above. In particular, the squelching of dissent tends to squelch vital wisdom. Most members of committees sport pedestrian intellects or hidebound outlooks, and are distrustful of and frightened by the small minority that alone has the intellectual and psychological wherewithal to anticipate, prepare for, and surmount through inventive strategy, rare or unprecedented contingencies (particularly those with a broad macroeconomic or sociological character). This phenomenon can be seen in its logical extreme in the establishment's unshaken dedication to their vision (paternalistic, feudalistic, oligarchical, techno-industrial world government), implicitly or explicitly rejecting the dissenting wisdom enumerated in this document and in countless other books, articles, speeches, and statements.
One sure seed of the establishment's demise is found in a particular dynamic closely related to the weaknesses of the committee system explored above. Current leaders of the establishment choose to promote, and invite into their inner circles, people they believe will not threaten their positions - sycophantic, servile Doberman types (think Henry Kissinger). This reverse-meritocracy is continued generation after generation. The result for the establishment is the same as would befall a baseball team whose management relentlessly signs players they believe will not overtake the batting average of any current player, or a university whose management recruits students and professors they believe will not overtake the achievements of the current crop. A side- effect is that (for example) most Rockefellers are not really in the corporate House of Rockefeller, though many or most still reap certain dividends from a certain level of association.
*
The establishment protects its interests by cultivating public indifference and incredulity, or outright endorsement of an operational facet (manufacturing consent through the media-democracy engine), as regularly as by conspiratorial secrecy, skullduggery, and foul play. Feeling insulted, and often sensing impending humiliation and mental bankruptcy, the indoctrinated public rejects the revelations of wise dissenters. Many forms of corruption come to be considered unthinkable, so that the very act of accusation is itself the confession of a transgression against the standards of decency (effectively, of ``thought crime'') often treated more harshly than the corruption itself.
The mass media machine is commissioned (in the case of broadcast media, under state license) to divide the public into three particular categories:
those who support the establishment program,
those who do not recognize that there is an establishment program, and
those who recognize that there is a program, and disagree with it, but are powerless to act against it, either because of personal demoralization, or due to social opposition by those in the first two categories.
Many or most individuals are in all of these categories, depending on the particular aspect of the establishment program at issue.
The mass media commands the attention of the public for many reasons, but the definitional constant is that each person knows many other people will pay attention, so that by paying attention, information can be gathered that is useful as a common cultural language. The mass media can thus be used to force-feed propaganda, and still pay for itself through advertising.
When there's fire in a crowded theater, it is well to shout ``fire,'' especially if no one else seems to notice the fire. Here I stand, shouting ``FIRE!'' This is not a drill. As William S. Burroughs said (in a short spoken word piece tracked on a Ministry CD single), ``There is nowhere else to go. The theater is global.'' There is no flight, there is only fight.
With sufficient patience and attentional investment, any intelligent and reasonable person can reach a thorough understanding of these topics as I have presented them. My purpose is to clue in reasonable people who already know there is something wrong, and aspire to help fix it, but heretofore have wanted for the details and architecture of the wrong.
This site is neither intended nor designed to sway the thinking of those who believe there is nothing seriously wrong with the status quo or with current trends, nor is it intended or designed to sway earnest and fervent adherents of any religion of mystic faith. Such people are almost certainly beyond redemption - being manifestly unreasonable - and I encourage them not to waste their time or mine, unless and until their faith has unravelled. I do suggest that those who reject my conclusions specifically answer to themselves this question: what evidence would convince you that you are wrong, and my conclusions are right? Quite likely, you will find that my treatment meets that standard, if you can admit it. ...
END
From the site: http://www.mega.nu:8080/den.html