The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
Where there is power, there is resistance.
Every age that has historical status is governed by aristocracies.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst.
These anti-public intellectuals are part of a disimagination machine that solidifies the power of the rich and the structures of the military-industrial-surveillance-academic complex by presenting the ideologies, institutions and relations of the powerful as commonsense.
When in doubt, mock the powerful, not the powerless.
Power is the goal of religion in general.
I think that running empires as a way of ordering the world is a flawed model.
Think well of yourself and others will too. Unless those others are in government, banking, or show business.
I'm an anarchist. I'm implacably opposed to heirarchical systems of power and control. I also mistrust crowds, as they often operate according to their lowest common denominator. In terms of evolutionary psychology, the crowd is very close to a herd of stampeding wildebeest.
I think a reason that a lot of people feel politically paralysed is that it used to be clear how power was organised. But those who have their hands on the levers of popular culture today have great power - and it isn't even clear who they are.
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game.
The world is run by monsters and you have to deal with them. Some of them run countries, some of them run banks, some of them run news corporations.
At school, everything was left v. right, communists and fascists; what interested me was the discussion of identity, autonomy, federalism, and community.
By bringing out into the public domain how human institutions actually behave, we can understand frankly, to a degree, for the first time the civilization that we actually have.
You can use a biography to examine political power, but only if you pick the right guy.
Deconstruction insists not that truth is illusory but that it is institutional.
The powerful don't make revolutions
Shall we have recourse to the art of printing? But this has not destroyed property or aristocracy or corporations or paper wealth in England or America, or diminished the influence of either; on the contrary, it has multiplied aristocracy and diminished democracy.
Real politics are the possession and distribution of power.
Power resides where men believe power resides.
Patriarchy is a political system just like colonialism was a political system.
In the sense that you're not at the centre of power, like a president or prime minister of a major power, everyone is marginalised; my position doesn't isn't unique in that respect. I think there are different sorts of relevance in different contexts.
I'm interested in exploring how an individual maintains a sense of power in a world that tends to make individuals feel powerless.
Ideas govern the world, or throw it into chaos.
