I understand that Joel LeFavre is looking for an underlying, unifying evil force that explains a coordinated direction that cannot possibly be due to a conspiracy among individual human beings over the entire world and over centuries of time.

Howerver, he may not consider the Evil One to be a concentrated form of human sin which exerts power over human society, as per Mr. Auster’s definition. Perhaps Mr. LeFavre’s Satan is a self-conscious spiritual being, or a group of beings that predate humanity, and “high places” refers to the spiritual worlds. This latter view, held by Christian mystics for many centuries, is still very different from the gnostic idea of evil.

I like knowing what people believe. I look forward to Mr. LeFavre writing back to expand his ideas.

I’m not saying this myself, but some might think that the idea of a group of spiritual beings who predate humanity and who control (or attempt to control) the world is similar to gnosticism. Could Mr. Raymond explain how the two ideas differ?

It seems in our discussion of Satan, Mr. Auster ironically is playing “the devil’s advocate”.

In my post on December 28 above, I tried briefly to present the point of view of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church. Saints who have had spiritual sight and have seen into the spiritual worlds have confirmed the reality of that point of view. In addition, both the Eastern and Western Church have condemned Gnosticism as a heresy. On that basis, I said in effect that the Church’s view of Satan is very different from Gnosticism’s view. I held out the possibility that the Church’s was the view on which Mr. LeFavre based his comments.

Mr. Auster, however, wants me to spell out just what some of the differences are. I assume readers of this posting are at least culturally familiar with the Bible.

In the first place, Gnosticism does not see Evil as something apart from Good. All of creation is corrupt because the god who created it (Demiurgos, the god of our solar system) is by nature corrupt, twisted, and distorted, and thinks he is god of the entire Universe. So he suffers from megalomania and self-deception. This is not the God of the Bible, who looked on His creation and said it was Good.

There are no “fallen angels” or evil spirits in Gnosticism since ALL ministering angels of Demiurgos are corrupt and twisted and self-deceived.

There is no need for Demiurgos to send a savior because the savior would be no better than the people he came to save. Salvation for Gnostics is to transcend Demiurgos to higher levels of being and see past the corruption of our material creation and our creator (i.e., have a “gnosis” or illumination). To that end, Demiurges’s higher-ups in purer spiritual realms sent Jesus. But if humanity’s creator, Demiurges, could not accept Jesus, how could his creation, human beings? Is the creation greater than the creator?
For more on Gnosticism, see http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

In the Christian world view, we live in a moral Universe, which means there exist both good and evil, even on the material level. The created beings of God, both angelic and human, are endowed with free will, a quality which would be meaningless were there no moral choices. The choices human beings make, individually and collectively, have consequences, both physical and spiritual. Fallen human beings, in rebellion against God, had such a propensity to choose evil that a Savior was needed to bring grace and restore human beings to communion and sonship with God. As I understand it, this is the basis of the Gospels (Good News) and the Christmas message.

I may have been playing devil’s advocate with Mr. Raymond but I wasn’t being ironic. I wanted to nail down the differences between the Christian belief in a personal devil who exerts influence over this world, and the gnostic belief in a demiurge who controls this world. Mr. Raymond’s reply has not satisfactorily clarified the issue for me. I realize I’m perhaps being stupid on this, but when I don’t understand something I find it best just to ask.

Also, I’m going to wait for Mr. LeFevre to return and clarify his ideas on Satan before I reply further because this thread began as a response to what he had said, and I may have misconstrued his remark. I interpreted both Satan and the “principalities and powers” in terms of human sin; and he may not accept that. My underlying concern (which is likely entirely wrong) was that if Satan is a supernatural person, then that might suggest a similarity between Christianity and gnosticism.

Thanks to Mr. Auster for the opportunity to present, as briefly as I can, a summary of the Biblical doctrine of Satan, which I’ll preface by stating that whether this doctrine falls under somebody else’s definition of ‘gnosticism’ isn’t something I’m too concerned about.

I assume that Mr. Auster believes in the existence of angelic beings, of the sort who heralded the birth of our Lord. If so, then it is apparently the concept that some of these angels have disobeyed, and fallen, and affect the peoples of earth that is the only issue, which Mr. Raymond has already touched on.

Two passages in the O.T. give insight as to Satan’s origin. In Isaiah 14, during a rebuke of Babylon, the prophet breaks in with, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, who didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit on the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.’ Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

In Ezekiel 28, during a rebuke of the King of Tyre, we read: “Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering … the workmanship of thy tabrets and thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou was upon the holy mountain of God; thou has walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness …”

Commentators through the centuries have recognized that the Lord went beyond the immediate subject to expound on the being who was behind the evil. The language suggests such. And the rest of Scripture confirms. It was the “I will’s” that brought sin into this universe. Contrast Satan’s declaration with the Lord Jesus’s in Gethsemane: “nevertheless not as I will, but thou wilt.”

Jesus said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (Luke 10:18) And rebuking the Pharisees He said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

When the Lord must condemn the unsaved, he will order them to, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt 25:41)

The Apostle Paul reminded us that, “Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Tim 2:13-14) By whom was she deceived, seeing that in Eden they were in innocence? When the Lord Jesus was tempted in 3 ways, who was it that was doing the tempting? He had no sin nature, (being virgin born, and therefore outside the Adamic curse,) by which to be tempted. He spoke to an actual being, who desired to be worshipped and who tried to incite the Lord to a gratuitous show of the Divine attributes the independent use of which He had voluntarily surrendured in the Incarnation in favor of trusting entirely in the Father’s care. When He made rebuke He said, “Get thee hence Satan, for it is written…” (In all 3 cases He quoted Scripture to defeat the adversary, a method available to His simplest follower.) He was not addressing a “concentrated form of human sin.”

When the Lord was accused of casting out demons by “Beelzebub, the prince of the demons,” He replied that “if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” (Matt 12:24,26)

Satan possessed Judas pursuant to the betrayal, (Luke 22:3) which was prophesied in Psalm 109:1-8. (cf. Acts 1:16,20)

A few more verses as to Satan’s activities:

“Wherefore we would have come unto you … but Satan hindered us.” (I Thes 2:18)
“…your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (I Pet 5:8)
“…for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” (II Cor 11:14-15)
“And the Lord said, ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that they faith fail not…” (Luke 22:31-32)

Paul speaks of the Antichrist, “whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders…” (II Thess 2:9)

Other fallen angels are spoken of. How many isn’t clearly stated, but it is intimated that up to 1/3 of the angels of God followed Lucifer in his rebellion. (Rev 12:4) These also deceive, (I Tim 4:1)

A group of demons who possessed the man from Gadara, when they saw the Lord, implored, “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come to torment us before the time?” (Matt 8:20) He sent them into a herd of swine, which promptly drowned themselves.

The most dramatic confirmation comes in Revelation. Ch 12, at vs 7: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: and the dragon fought and his angels. And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.” (Satan currently still has access to the Throne of God, as we saw in Job.) “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him… . the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which did accuse them before our God day and night… . Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth he hath but a short time.”

He then turns his wrath on Israel.

Finally we are told that an angel of God, “laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” To see what happens when he’s briefly released, see the rest of Rev 20. But finally, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, [and have been for 1,000 years already,] and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

The judgment of men FOLLOWS: “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

Thanks to Mr. LeFevre for these Biblical quotes on the fallen angels. The ideas are familiar to us all, but it helps to have this refresher course. In brief, Satan and the other fallen angels are spirits in rebellion against God. What this means, as I understand it, is that their sin is essentially the same as ordinary human sin, though on a larger scale, i.e., a resistance to true being that results in a lack of being, and that this rebellion cannot hold out against the manifestation of God’s truth. I don’t see any overlay with gnosticism here. There’s no similarity between Satan and the demiurge.

Also, one of our participants asked me: “Should there be found some similarities between Christianity and Gnosticism, is there a problem with that?” That’s too large a subject for me now. However, as Voegelin said, there are clearly gnostic potentialities in the New Testament and perhaps in the Hebrew Bible as well, and these need to be resisted.

I think any seeming relation to Gnosticism in the Scriptures must involve a severe misintepretation that wrests passages from their context, and I fully agree with Mr. Auster that such should be vehemently resisted.

(I also didn’t mean to infer that I was ambivalent about that error, per se, only that it wasn’t an immediate concern as I am confident the Scriptures teach no such thing.)

And indeed, there are passages that seem specifically aimed as a refutation of Gnosticism, of which a few would be found in Colossians and I John. (I had thought that the very hope of a final bodily resurrection seems contrary to that error.)

I would add 2 points in this question. (1) There is bound to be some common truths in many faiths. The Golden Rule was not first articulated by Christ but only affirmed, and exists in other religions — which says nothing about whether said faiths are entirely founded in the Truth. (2) It is the nature of Satanic deception, as the ‘angel of light’ verse above shows, for error to ‘mimic’ the truth, which certainly includes incorporating some truths as an outward lure while excluding more fundamental and essential truths — and inclusion of outright heresies.

Thanks again to Mr. Auster, and apologies to the reader for the length of my post.

No offence, but “Iraq War for oil” is not a theory, much less one of the “conspiracy” variety.

While it would be overly simplistic to charge that Bush’s War flowed from America’s need for a secure oil source that also happens to make his friends very rich, to deny that connection is absurd.

Since, WWI America has been devising methods to increase her share of the region’s oil. This includes propping up a Saudi fiefdom to secure a U.S. monopoly on refining that country’s oil.

Furthermore, in Irag specifically we abetted the Baath Party’s military coup in the late 60’s because the ruling party had nationalized America’s oil interest.

And on and on.

Until very recently, U.S. foriegn policy governing the region expressed defintion by only two principals: oil and Isarael. Nothing more, nothing less.

“Oil as warmaonger motivation” is not a question of fact, but only a question of degree.

Johnny’s comments are beneath the level of stupidity, verging on a gnostic denial of manifest reality. Unfortunately, it’s a stupidity and a gnostic denial shared by millions of otherwise intelligent and mentally normal people.

The U.S. need for oil is a constant; it existed before 9/11 as well as after 9/11. Yet it was only after 9/11 that Bush conceived of invading Iraq. Obviously some other factors entered the equation, namely the very factors that Bush himself has endlessly repeated, that given what we now know about the militant Islam’s intentions toward us, it was too dangerous to allow the continued existence of a tyrannical rogue regime with weapons of mass destruction and ongoing programs to improve and develop those weapons and delivery systems for them.

If Johnny’s so-smart theory is correct, then he must answer why oil would have motivated Bush to invade Iraq after 9/11—with all the risks to our country and his own presidency that that entailed—when it did not motivate him to do so before 9/11.

“If Johnny’s so-smart theory is correct, then he must answer why oil would have motivated Bush to invade Iraq after 9/11—with all the risks to our country and his own presidency that that entailed—when it did not motivate him to do so before 9/11.”

a. I didn’t hear Johnny call it a theory, to say nothing of any all-explaining conspiracy theory.

b. In an absolute sense, God only knows another man’s motivations.

c. The question is objectionable. Bush might have had the motivation to invade before 9/11 but merely lacked the means, i.e. pretext. For instance, it sometimes occurs to me to do harm to others. Now if I do so, or even dwell on the idea, then I am certainly committing a sin. Fortunately I generally lack the means or justification to commit it in deed. However, it cannot be denied that the motivation arises from time to time.

d. Speaking of manifest reality and answering questions, are you saying we could do without oil from the middle east? That Iraq’s oil —the second largest proved reserves and bordering the first largest (Saudi Arabia), provided absolutely no motivation for our interest in the area? To no one? Look at the other side of the coin. As I recall, one of the arguments was that Saddam was trading or could have traded oil for weapons. An objectionable way of putting it would be to ask if you are naive or just daft.

e. By the way, the need for oil is not constant, like a healthy human’s need for oxygen. China’s “need” for oil is currently increasing. Economists call that demand. Ditto India. Certain sources of oil are declining, as in tapped out. Not too much new drilling in Pennsylvania. “Supply”. All other things being equal —like not finding an alternative source of fuel, when demand goes up and supply goes down, price tends to go up. In other words, US need for oil, relatively, will go up. Especially if we want a growing economy. Or in non-economical terms, we could just talk about people’s expectations.

f. A joke to lighten things up. I understand Golda Meir once said, “Moses?! Don’t talk to me about Moses. He spent 40 years leading us to the one place in the Middle East without oil.”

g. Finally, evidence, direct and circumstantial. It is reasonable to infer from the circumstances of US use of oil that oil was and is a factor in US foreign policy, and for damn good reasons. Those vegetables I ate last night came from somewhere. Further use of ordinary reason suggests that people might be tempted to use unjust means to accomplish good ends.

Re Chris’s point c, my question was “objectionable”? Illogical, perhaps—but objectionable?

My question goes to the heart of the issue. Chris’s general observation that a person may have a desire to do something before he has the means and opportunity to do it adds up to an insidious fantasy when it is applied to Bush and Iraq. There is no evidence suggesting that Bush was thinking of an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11, and certainly not for the sake of oil. Of course Iraq was a continuing, ten-year-old problem for our government. That related to the dangerous nature of the regime, not to our desire to get hold of Iraq’s oil production, which we could have done very simply at any time by dropping the sanctions against Iraq and allowing Husseins’s oil to flow freely to the world markets once again.

The economic point that is constantly missed by the “war for oil” ranters is that we do not control anyone’s oil in the Middle East. OPEC is currently voting to cut production to maintain high prices, regardless of any friendships we have in the area. We saved Kuwait, but we did not take over their oil, and they are still part of OPEC and the price of oil is still high. The first Gulf War was criticized as being “all about oil” as well. But, we saved Kuwait and then left them alone as an independent state. Their oil is sold on the free market at the going market price. We did not get any special contractual arrangement, even.

The same will be true of Iraq. We will eventually be gone, and they will be selling oil on the world markets at the going rate. Perhaps Johnny and Chris could offer coherent theories about the oil motivations that show a basic understanding of these economic facts?

Sure it’s an insidious fantasy —to the extent that it is a jump to a conclusion. But the general observation regarding motivation and means still holds. Whether and how to apply it is, of course, crucial.

But to deny the facts on and under the ground with regard to the importance of oil needlessly scotches the debate. Those facts are circumstantial evidence. Making reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence is, by definition, reasonable. The circumstantial evidence is simply overwhelming that oil played and still plays a part in any decisions regarding Iraq.

I therefore took Johnny to mean, and I am trying to say here, that there are differences between complete conspiracy theorists and those who recognize the importance of oil. Perhaps Johnny and I nitpick. Perhaps your reference to “war for oil” only related to the former and not the latter. If so, then maybe Johnny and I have been baited by a straw man of sorts.

Which brings me to why the question was objectionable. First, it was needlessly insulting. Second, it assumed the fact that Bush had no motivation to invade pre-9/11. In an absolute sense (b), God only knows Bush’s motivations. As far as I’m concerned, we’re dealing with certain unknowables and probable never-knowables here. Nevertheless, circumstantial evidence leads to the reasonable inference that, somewhat contrary to the “no motivation” stance, Bush and others were aware of the importance of oil.

Here’s the question I asked Johnny, which Chris calls a “needlessly insulting” question. I said that Johnny “must answer why oil would have motivated Bush to invade Iraq after 9/11—with all the risks to our country and his own presidency that that entailed—when it did not motivate him to do so before 9/11.”

That’s insulting? True, I made a sarcastic crack preceding the question, but there’s obviously nothing insulting about the question itself, unless Chris considers logic insulting. Meanwhile Chris seems unable to bring his generalized thoughts about motivations into any concrete logical relationship with the facts on the ground. To risk “insulting” Chris, may I suggest that he ought to try to address Mr. Coleman’s points.

I think “needlessly insulting” refers to the post as a whole, not to the question per se.
I think the part about “beneath stupid” is what did it.

Mr. Jose is right. That part of my comment was insulting, and consciously so. I think that manifestly stupid statements should be described as such. One of the reasons that our common intellectual standards keep declining is that people feel completely free to keep repeating manifestly ignorant, idiotic nonsense, and they feel free to do so because no one ever tells them otherwise. I don’t share the liberal view that everyone has a right to his opinion.

Yes, I stand corrected. I meant the post as a whole was insulting. Thank you Mr. Auster and Mr. Jose.

Nevertheless, I wasn’t aware that suggesting oil was and is a consideration in our foreign policy constituted ranting. As for Mr. Auster’s suggestion, it is an excellent one.

First, I’ll not defend the archetypical paranoid conspiracy theorist. He can’t defend himself.

Second, it’s great that we are willing to trade for oil.

Third, it’s great that we don’t have colonies.

Now, what’s Coleman’s point?

There is none. It’s anti-war rant bait. Keep it.

My point, and the point that is always missed by the anti-war-for-oil ranters if you will, is that it’s pretty important that we keep oil out of the hands of Islamic terrorists (d) and keep the Persian Gulf safe and working. Odd that this can be universally agreed upon by those in support of the war when talking amongst themselves, but apparantly cannot even be acknowledged by them when stated by anyone else not expressly in that camp.

Sans the insult to the those in support of the invasion of Iraq, what is false about Johnny’s concluding statement? “”Oil as war motivation” is not a question of fact, but only a question of degree.”

As I wrote, there are good reasons to be concerned about oil and, hence, that region.

Chris seems to be missing the point. It is one thing to say that Mideast oil is of crucial importance of the economic functioning of the U.S. and other countries and therefore preserving the stability of that region is a constant interest on our part; that is a truism and no one denies it. It is another thing to say that we invaded Iraq for the purpose of taking over/expropriating its oil wells. As Mr. Coleman pointed out, that is ridiculous. When irrational haters keep attacking the war as a “war for oil,” naturally supporters of the war are going to tend to reply to that paranoid charge, rather than make the more subtle point about the world’s interest in the Mideast.

It remains the fact that Bush did not invade Iraq for the sinister purpose of getting control of its oil.

Also, after complaining about my insulting tone toward Johnny the war-for-oil ranter, Chris replied to Mr. Coleman’s cogent comment as follows:

“Now, what’s Coleman’s point?

“There is none. It’s anti-war rant bait. Keep it.”

If that’s the way Chris replies to an intelligent and pertinent comment, I’ve lost interest in replying to him.

I see a few mistakes in what you’ve stated about not only gnosticism, but also liberalism and conservatism. You claimed that “the gnostic conspiracy theorists see the evil in high places as some external force intruding itself from behind the curtain onto an otherwise innocent and spotless world.” This is a clear misunderstanding of the teaching of gnosticism and sounds much more to me like the writings of the canonical gospels who claimed the pharisees and scribes of the Jewish clergy had been possessed by the devil and convinced by him to destroy Jesus.
Gnosticism does not in any way assume that the world is “innocent and spotless.” On the contrary, it views the world as a corrupt result of the corruption of its creator and his attempt to build something which he could control. Mr. Auster should study his gnosticism before he comments on it.
In the same vein, Mr. Kalb’s “Tyranny of Liberalism,” which Mr. Auster cites as proof of the evil liberal demons lurking outside our windows, is the same paranoid foolishness as the JFK conspiracy fantasies he so cleverly ridiculed, the ranting of frightened children who feel their safety depends upon demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
Here’s a piece of news for you. People who hold different opinions about politics, religion, economics, and dare I say morality, are not out to imprison people like you and become dictators of an Orwellian police state. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but your problems are much smaller than you think.

“People who hold different opinions about politics, religion, economics, and dare I say morality, are not out to imprison people like you and become dictators of an Orwellian police state.”

Tell that to the Belgians:
http://www.stephenpollard.net/001564.html

Or the Canadians:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04041604.html

Or the British:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/14/nhamm14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/14/ixhome.html

D says that I have gnosticism wrong when I write that “the gnostic conspiracy theorists see the evil in high places as some external force intruding itself from behind the curtain onto an otherwise innocent and spotless world.” He continues: “Gnosticism … views the world as a corrupt result of the corruption of its creator … “

What D says is true of classic gnosticism. The key idea of gnosticism is that the world is the result of evil and falsity, an evil and falsity that people cannot see because it is built into the very structure of existence, and that the truth, the true God, has been hidden behind this conspiratorial structure and must be found. However, there are many variations on the gnostic impulse. Thus the belief that our whole society is some vast conspiracy of evil that has separated us from our true, pristine selves is a form of gnostic thinking. The terms are switched around a bit, but the basic impulse that gives rise to it is the same as with the classic gnosticism: a profound alienation from the world as it is.

To clarify the analogy between the two variations of gnosticism, in the classic gnosticism, the Demiurge, a lower-order deity, has created a false universe which we falsely believe is the true universe and from whose seductive illusions we must escape in order to discover the one true god. In the modern conspiracy thinking I was describing, hidden forces controlling our society have distorted society into a hideous false oppressive alienating structure the secrets of which we must penetrate to free ourselves from it and return to the true order of society. Thus

(a) the Demiurge is equivalent to the hidden controllers of society;

(b) the false world created by the Demiurge is equivalent to the false “System” under which we live; and

(c) the true god whom we must discover is equivalent to the true, peaceful, egalitarian order of society from which the “System” has alienated us.

All this is not to say that there are not actual conspiracies in the world, i.e., people with power who are seeking to shape the world in the direction of their desires. Robert Locke has an article on that theme which I am currently reading. (I don’t have a web link to it at the moment.)

As for D’s substantive points, the actual agenda of the transnational left, referenced by Matt, ought to be a sufficient response.

I apologize, and I should take my own advice about understanding before commenting. I misunderstood what you meant by gnosticism, but to comment again on the “leftist conspiracy,” I did not mean to say that there are no so called conspiracies that may be aligned with again so-called liberal views, but the conspirators are few compared to the majority of leftist thinkers. The philosophy of liberalism is not an Orwellian design; it is simply one form of political/economic/social theory.
One problem that has crippled both major parties in the US in the past several decades is the conspiracy rhetoric of liberal and conserative political groups, who call each other “big government liberals” or “big business conservatives.” It is true that conservatives (in areas like taxation and regulation) tend to favor big business and multinational corporations, and it is true that liberals (in areas like business regulation and public services) tend to favor a larger role for government, but we should take a look at the most recent US president, a conservative who has expanded the federal government to its largest size ever, and at the liberal presidents and legislatures in the past who have answered to big business interests (like pharmaceutical and insurance corporations) as much as conservatives have to their favorites (like defense industries, and excuse me for rubbing a sore, the petroleum industry).
Scapegoating the group that doesn’t agree with you again will not stop the conspiracies. The conspirators who would (and some would argue do) control our lives are beyond distinctions of rhetoric.
Consider our current war situation. Putting aside the questions of whether the war was a good idea, can we really ignore the fact, which is staring us in the face, that the VP is still under the payroll of the only company allowed to contract out reconstruction in the country we are at war in? This is a conspiracy if I’ve ever seen one, and this man is a member of the ideological right.
To say that liberalism, or even conservatism, is a conspiracy to control the world, is like saying that every dark skinned person is out to get you if you are white.
Right and left are obsolete, and no longer real. Until we figure that out, our government will control us by flashing the two sides at our fear while what they are really doing is a hidden mystery.

I agree with D that scapegoating is not a good thing, and that the current polarized debate in this country is not a good thing. But what does any of that have to do with the issues discussed this thread?

Also, D’s comment, “Right and left are obsolete,” is simply incorrect. It may be true that at given times and places these terms cease to be used with any coherent and accurate meaning, such as when so-called conservatives act like liberals. But that doesn’t mean that the underlying concepts of left and right are without meaning. Far from it. Left and right are enduring realities of politics since the 18th century. People who imagine that left and right are obsolete and destructively polarizing ideas are, whether they realize it or not, people who want to abolish political debate, and thus to abolish politics itself. A typical result of this “let’s get rid of the polarization of left and right” idea is the Campaign Finance law.