Toward a “Borg” Definition.

Since there are competing attempts to describe the forces of eternal darkness as "The Deep State," etc., we should generate an "official" definition of the "Borg" as the destroyer of souls.

Submit suggestions and I will judge the net of that.  It will become a post on SST.   It will stand forever triumphant against the machinations of the neocon/R2P hordes, maybe.  pl

This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns. Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to Toward a “Borg” Definition.

  1. cynic says:

    The minions of organized Jewry.

  2. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Borg, applying the terminology of Marxists, is:
    The highest expression of the Consciousness of the Ruling Classes of the Western Diocletian Civilization, all the while striving to exert its Ideological Hegemony on all issues that are even remotely political (i.e. concerned with Human Action.)
    Therefore, Borg accepts no legitimate competition, no alternative world-views, and is in a constant state of struggle against any opposition to its own Consciousness; which, it believes, is all the Humankind could usefully expect to ever achieve.
    This belief structure, in various amounts, consists of Scientism, Secularism, and firm belief in the absolute indefeasibility of violence as the ultimate arbiter of human affairs.

  3. Haralambos says:

    This is brilliant bit of Swift in my opinion, in our 21st century. I wonder who will rise to the bait.

  4. annamaria says:

    The hierarchical organization of psychopathic opportunists

  5. Jwoodmimi says:

    Listen to this audio rant from Stephen Miller, Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisor. He seems to think our sovereignty is in jeopardy.

  6. kooshy says:

    Colonel I think Borg is collection mix of more than just one interest of hubristic groups. Importantly and unfortunately these interest groups or personalities ( due to laziness and undo trust, by the constituency meaning us ) have got the control over the most important constitutional institutions of this United States. IMO they are not, and will not give up the control as easy as we hop. In this mix of hubristic interests (Borgistas), there are financial wall street interests, there is the military industrialist, there are federal bureaucracy interests, there is the Israeli AIPAC interests, obviously there is the institutionalize religious interest, I would even throw in some academic educational interests, these many groups have many common interest points which makes the Borg ( common intersection interest point of the elite) possible. There interests like paying our taxes to Israel, having more wars, helping banks not to fall, tax free religion, etc. can and will be wrapped in the flag and is sold by some, or to some pure blind nationalists.

  7. Doug Colwell says:

    A set of people who, in their quest for personal power, have adopted a delusional view of the world in which US power, in particular military and economic, must dominate everwhere, at any cost.
    It’s awkward but I’m sure others will do better.

  8. Larry Kart says:

    Cynic — Speaking as a (if you will) semi-organized Jew and a longtime follower of SST, what a lovely way to start things off.

  9. esq says:

    Prissy, convinced they are “well-educated” but would seem dumb to a 19th C. man of letters, status-seeking, virtue-signalling, lazy whores

  10. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    Claude thanks you. pl

  11. ToivoS says:

    Borg describes a group of American power players who believe it is America’s right to impose our values on other nations. Imposition of American values begins with diplomacy (i.e. threats), then to economic sanctions taking advantage of the US dollar as the reserve currency (and control a major monetary funds), the right to support dissident political movements in other countries including supporting armed rebellions. If these moves fail then direct attack by bombing raids and finally, if necessary, ground invasion by American and NATO forces.
    the Borg is found in both political parties that originated with T. Roosevelt (Republican tradition) with overt imperial ambitions and with W. Wilson (Dems) with the desire to spread American democracy throughout the world. These have evolved into the Republican neocons and the Democratic right to protect (R2P) schools though at a practical level there is little difference between the two. In short, the Borgs advocate aggressive US intervention into other nations even if US national interests are not at stake.

  12. jld says:

    I would suggest getting proper definitions from a genuine source, i.e. Anne-Marie Slaughter’s book
    I cursorily browsed it at a bookstore a while ago and it left me with horrified, nauseous feelings…

  13. Old Microbiologist says:

    The Saker has a very long, but in my opinion accurate description using the term Anglo-Zionist which I believe is the best definition of the deep state.
    I know some here don’t like the Saker but from a Russian perspective it seems to be the best site for analysis of US global policies, particularly how it affects nations resisting American hegemony. I try and keep an open mind.

  14. kutte says:

    Quite honestly I was always puzzled how difficult it is to
    find a term for “them”. The empire, the psychopaths, the
    insatiable, the greedy – nothing seemed to satisfactorily sum
    up the common qualities of “them”. I now humbly suggest the
    term “Alliance of the Superflous”, because I believe that is
    the problem that unites Mdm. Albright and Hillary and Bill
    Clinton and George W. Busch and 1000 others. They try to
    bestow their “services” on an unwilling public, which would
    voluntarily never buy them. Hence Mdm. Albrights notion of
    “indispensable”, stating the precide opposite of what you are
    for purpose of camouflage. Unfortunately, “Alliance of the
    Superflous” has not got much Oomph and is unlikely to catch
    on, but IMHO it hits the nail on the head (in all modesty, of
    course), so I felt obliged to mention it.
    Cheers Kutte

  15. Charles Michael says:

    Borg has a very likable sound: goes with borborygmes (noisiy stomach rumbles), bring an evocation of the undestructible Cyborg (of Dombass fame) and bring remanescence of the Borgia’s poisoning.
    Borg is a semi-structured sect of believers in being part of some exceptionalism; to be part of it you have to conform to.
    They use a very cynical range of immoral, malefic means but still they want to portray themselves as the just, the pure do-gooders of a superior cause.
    Cynical and delusional then.

  16. Kassandra says:

    The Borg is a net of believers in nihilist power gathering technologies. You have to spread misery since you cannot control self-reliant and happy people. You have to create scarcity to control the flow of resources. You have to destroy hope to force your disrespect of humanity down to the grassroots. You support boundless violence and drugs as effective substitute for the pleasure of interacting tendderly with human beings. It is an ancient pestilence killing souls, incubated by existential fear.

  17. Kunuri says:

    To me, the Borg represent a group of people united in an ideology and a way of life, such as clergy, illuminati, inelligencia, or bourgeoisie etc.
    As far as the ideology part, Doug Colwell above described it above better than I could. Maybe I will come up with something that can crystallize all above in one sentence.

  18. A says:

    The Saker’s definition of hegemonic power, in search of the establishment of a global empire, goes a long any in describing the “Borgism”: Anglo-Zionism would partially define the ideology behind Borgistas ( ).
    There is however one big deficiency in the terminology of Anglo-Zionism. While the first part of the word refers to ethnicity, the second section is more accurately points towards an ideology. Although the Saker goes into detail in his article to specify that he is talking about a section of the elite and not everyone of “Anglo” background, the term is unfortunate in the same way that Cynic’s “Organized Jewery” is.
    Empiro-Anglo-Zionism (a mouthful that needs to be somehow condensed) would be a “one-word” definition of Borgism.
    Babak’s geographically tinted definition would partially fit into “Empiro-Anglo-Zionism” as this would constitute Western Diocletian Civilization minus the Continental Europe that was decimated during the WWII, this loosing int’s Empirial tendencies.

  19. A says:

    I hope you mean Zionism and not Organized Jewery.

  20. A says:

    Parts of Europe that were devestated during WWII would not fit into your definition as their overwhelming majority (Ben within their Elite) have given upon the dreams of an Empire.

  21. Dmcna says:

    That is so good. I particularly like ‘virtue signalling’. So often fuelled by the belief or awareness that one has done something wrong,

  22. Peter Reichard says:

    An amorphous sub rosa political organization and group consciousness involving government especially the intelligence agencies, state dept.and military combined with media and academia along with its associated think tanks.It seeks to hijack US foreign policy and under the cover of American exceptionalism and world domination promote the interests of predatory international finance capitalism and revisionist zionism.

  23. no one says:

    A mob of soulless craven zombies of mediocre intelligence that endlessly, approvingly and unquestioningly repeat set of virtues and related elements of a political agenda , as if they are, respectively, objective high truths and necessary actions to bring create a glorious reality.
    No member of the Borg actually knows or ponders the source of the set of virtues as the goodness and high truth of it is deemed to be self-evident to all savvy people. There can be some minor disagreement over the agenda concerning how to make the virtues manifest in the physical realm.

  24. Lochearn says:

    This is food for thought indeed and lately I’ve been thinking along similar lines. The words destroying and destruction are more appropriate than, for example, chaos as in the over-used Empire of Chaos, which I would change to Empire of Destruction. Chaos can be positive in the sense of “he’s chaotic but gets things done.” I liked your choice of “souls” which carries religious or spiritual overtones but can also be applied to physical persons as in “souls on board.”
    What you allude to is not just a destruction of our physical lives but a loss of moral and spiritual dimensions as well. Thank you.

  25. Lars says:

    In the Scandinavian languages, a Borg is a fort, or citadel, that is built to keep the elite safe when the enemy shows up. Everybody else are on their own. This makes it insular, paranoid and frequently a focus on pageantry to keep the outsiders entertained and distracted.

  26. David Lentini says:

    There already is a definition for the destroyer of souls: Satan.

  27. Barish says:

    While there’s noises made about what a wonderful world we’d have if everyone just put transplants into their hands rather than carry around key-rings, cash, hard physical IDs etc., I much prefer the term “Hive” rather than “Borg”, in lieu of that cabal being made up of people rather than the classic sci-fi-staple that is cyborgs, as that wet dream of theirs is still a-ways off from happening.
    My own definition for the “Hive”? A movement of elites that fancy themselves as grandiose, gracious and powerful a leadership as led the proverbial mother of all empires, the Imperium Romanum in the past. All the while, they lack the deft cunning, virtues and military expertise to back up the imperial hubris founded on just such characteristics.
    Why would I look such a ways back to the past to try and understand what drives these people? I listen to a Mr Obama_defend_, of all things, the understanding with Iran reached last year by pointing out how he, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has directly ordered military action in seven countries, I am mildly reminded of the type of diction with which an emperor Augustus set in stone the sum of his deeds, Res Gestae, late in his reign:
    “3 Bella terra et mari civilia externaque tóto in orbe terrarum suscepi victorque omnibus veniam petentibus cívibus pepercí.”
    “3 Wars, both civil and foreign, I undertook throughout the world, on sea and land, and when victorious I spared all citizens who sued for pardon.”
    Of course, I am not particularly aware that His Excellency, Mr Obama, nor the rest of the “Hive” are too big on genuine mercy and pardon.

  28. JJackson says:

    I had always thought it was more like Star Trek Borg – the ones that are going to assimilate you – regardless of any thoughts you may have on the matter. As they say ‘resistance is futile’. Strange how many seem to resist anyway.

  29. LondonBob says:

    Impressed that Trump has outsourced his immigration and trade policies to Jeff Sessions’ people. If he can find the right people in foreign policy etc. then he will do fine.

  30. This is a very useful post and thread IMO!
    MY definition:
    The Borg [see also wiki entry derivative of Star Trek movies and series] are those that believe the U.S.A. and its various leaderships are CHOSEN and thus deserving of using their hard power [organized violence] and soft power [its culture and economic strength] to make over the world in their own self image, no matter how erroneous that self image is in fact. Based largely on their egos, hubris, and ignorance the members of the BORG know implicitly that they are the only ones with the one RIGHT answer to almost any problems of international relations. Their biggest fear, despite their policy choices, are that the nation-state system is best protected if the HIGH PRIESTS OF THE BORG are allowed to hand down and enforce their belief systems. Few are critical thinkers but follow the dialectic set out by existing elites thereby fearing to challenge existing elites by their independent thinking. When in leadership positions in various forums there rarely relish getting second opinions therefore fulfilling the maxim that KILL THE MESSENGER rarely leads to good outcomes among policy development, implementation, and actual operations. Most of the BORG could be labeled devotees of SITUATION ETHICS but based only their intuition often wrong.

  31. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Who said “Empire” – not I.

  32. Fred says:

    That is a good start but leaves out men and women like Fareed Zakaria.
    “accepts no legitimate competition” It is a quasi religious belief system, thus they have dogma. I believe your term “Shoah Cultists” gets closer to that rigidity of thought, especially for those on the left who believe God is dead.

  33. annamaria says:

    Thank you. The A-M Slaughter’ definition is really solid.

  34. kooshy says:

    Seems to me that you think the Borgistas view is only focused on foreign dominance, sort of colonist/ imperialist only agenda, IMO Borgist control starts and started here at home in US. Americans here at home are as much, if not more subject to Borgist control and power as is the rest of the world. Here is good description by ever alive George Carlin.
    George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

  35. annamaria says:

    I doubt that the Borg is interested in peoples’ feelings and that it has any beliefs. The Borgists’ primary concern are money and power: the consequences of achieving the money and power are of tertiary importance for the Borg. Actually, the Borg would prefer to deal with a content population, particularly near the Borg’s headquarters, to maintain the Borgists’ quality of life and to avoid extra spending on suppression of discontent. A. P. Chekhov wrote somewhere that an intelligent and sensitive person does not desire to be a boss. The Borg is a hierarchy of self-selected psychopathic opportunists which want to be bosses and which have no principles – and thus no motherland.

  36. Fred says:

    A good definition should sprinkle in some Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a touch of Levi-Straus and a pinch of Nietzsche; by all means leave out God and Faith.

  37. kooshy says:

    Thank you, I never connected the two although it was in front of us, but IMO you did it better than most of us. Yes, I also think Borg = deep believers (religiously) and practitioners of their right to be exceptional (American exceptionalism) than the rest.

  38. turcopolier says:

    True Borgists are nearly all without real religious (theist)faith. the Borgist faith has more to do with Jean Jacques Rousseau than with Jesus. pl

  39. I intended to take a stab at defining the “Borg” , but then read Peter Reichard’s attempt which was what I was trying to put into words. In comparison to many of the efforts, it has the advantage of being non-pejorative and, though succinct, is descriptively adequate.
    However, and with apologies to P.R. and for the sake of discussion I did a bit of editing, as follows: (The “Borg” is) An informal arrangement of sub rosa and amorphous political organizations. It consists of important factions in the intelligence, diplomatic, and defense organs of government and in the two political parties. It influences and is influenced by think tanks, academia, and the media. ….

  40. C L says:

    Your comment brought to mind the great Halldor Laxness
    Excerpt from his book: Under the Glacier
    Dr Syngmann: Your God – isn’t he a Jew?
    Pastor Jon: Oh, is that what He is? I had almost forgotten. But if that is so – and even if it were so – does that change anything?
    Dr Syngmann: No, it changes precisely nothing. On the other hand we don’t need a jew – and even less do we need those who have stolen from the Jews, such as the Pope and Mohammed.
    Pastor Jon: I didn’t know you were against the Jews, Dr.
    Dr Syngmann: God is the god of the Jews, say I! That’s why you ought to leave him alone, Jon. What you have stolen can never be yours. The Jews could take these god-theives to court and have them sentenced to prison in accordance with the berne convention, which prescribes heavy penalties for the theft of patents & ideas. Not to mention scandals like the one when the christians without ceremony stole from the Jews their national literature and added to it a piece of Greek overtime-work they called the New Testaments, which is mostly a distortion of the Old Testament, and, what’s more, an anti-Semitic book. My motto is, leave the Jews alone. Those who deck themselves out in stolen gods are not viable.

  41. Babak Makkinejad says:

    In re-reading my post, I wish I could alter it to read instead: “imbued with the Ethos of the Godfather movies…”

  42. Babak Makkinejad says:

    This is really quite good; finally the implicit acknowledgment that Jews, Christians and Muslims – all have “stolen” their religion from that of Martyred Zoroaster.

  43. asx says:

    The Borg is not about the who but the what and why.
    The Borg is about maximizing the the net power differential between our country any any other challenger. This is a legitimate national interest. However the Borg defines what constitutes this power to its own advantage. To date, this has only been about raw military, technological and economic power, without any correlation to what it gets for the average citizens.
    The Borg defends the primacy of the dollar. It does so by inflating the nominal size of our economy as measured in USD. Spending $3T in healthcare, more than the next 20 nations on defense, the highest college costs etc are achieved by outrageous inflation. It does not believe in optimizing costs. Anything which makes our GDP numbers look bigger without care as to what it means for the average citizens.
    Foreign Policy.
    The Borg has inherited all the British playbooks, with no new original thought. Net result of Borg policy is that we end up playing arsonist in large parts of the world. Maintaining balance of power and keeping others insecure and destabilized is important enough that the Borg accepts blow backs. There is also the interplay with the Borg economic goals. You need an opponent technologically advanced to justify military budgets. Fighting terrorism is very low cost tech as far as weapons and delivery systems are concerned. The desire for permanent conflict with Russia should be seen primarily as an economic measure.
    Freedom of Expression.
    The Borg encourages freedom of expression along some axes as long as it does not interfere in its goals. Domestic policy, the Borg keeps its hands away and there is lot of discussion and dissent. This is a useful mask to gain legitimacy when all the voices are synchronized when it comes to the Borg’s main interests. During the first Gulf war, reporters embedded with the forces was the in thing. What is more interesting is the Borg embedding itself within all the MSM. We are a rich country. We don’t have just one Pravda, but many with different logos all capable of synchronized lying when it comes to the Borg’s needs.
    The Borg can never be defeated, but only modified to seek legitimate goals which benefit all Americans. For that, men with good intent will need to keep calling out the truth as they see, and make the rest of us aware.

  44. jld says:

    No, though indeed the largest contingent of the Borg is from the US I don’t think the Borg per se is caring that much for the US except as an “instrument”.
    The Israel firsters and the vast majority of the Eurocrats are as Borgish as one would wish.
    This is very well described by A-M Slaughter as the “worldwide high-bureaucracy” in her book I linked above.

  45. Larry Kart says:

    Though I think you got my drift, just in case others did not, I was being ironic in that post, and by “lovely way to start things off” I meant “ugly way.”

  46. SmoothieX12 says:

    BORG is triumphalist, exceptionalist, messianic cabal.

  47. Jackrabbit says:

    What is the Borg?
    In the StarTrek series, the ‘Borg’ was a mindless group of drones (the ‘Collective’) that shared a ‘hive mind’ . The ST Borg sought to forcefully ‘assimilate’ other species who would make them stronger by adding capabilities that the Borg didn’t yet possess. Although the assimilated lose their individuality as part of the Borg, they gain the protection/security of the Collective. The real-life phenomena that SST describes as a ‘Borg’ shares these characteristics.
    The SST Borg seeks to ‘assimilate’ others via ideological programming (formerly, “brainwashing”). Those who join gain real benefits from the ‘Collective’ like career advancement.
    The SST Borg is the instrumentality of the ideology that controls and drives the Empire. The SST Borg consists of media compatriots, academic and think tank fellow travelers, solicitous politicians, self-serving oligarchs (especially in MIC/Energy/Media/FIRE industries), and associated sycophants, boot-lickers, and minions that are bought or intimidated.
    The Saker coined the term “AngloZionist Empire” to better describe American Imperialism. This term is an amalgam of Anglo power + Zionist ideology. But Saker’s high-level description fails to address how the ideology is applied in practice.
    The Zionist ideology, and its American syllogism, neoconservativism (“Neocons”), makes a clear distinction between rulers and the ruled. Neoconservatism is based on the noble fantasy of the philosopher King and promotes manipulation of the ruled for some (supposedly) higher purpose. However, in practice, what passes as ‘higher purpose’ chiefly benefits the self-proclaimed rulers themselves. Many of the neocons were Zionists that didn’t want American to turn isolationist after the Vietnam War defeat. Israel needed America as a ‘big brother’. Neoconservativism appealed to American elites after the turbulent 1960’s, but it really took off after the fall of the Soviet Union as neocons pushed for the US to re-orient its military toward other ‘dangers’, particularly in the Middle East.
    Today’s Borg promotes the neocon notion of ‘exceptionalism’ – which in practice has become a new form of ‘manifest destiny’ that places American military resources in the hands of . . . Neocon/neocon-controlled political leaders. ‘Exceptionalism’ is a self-licking ice-cream cone that at once dissuades dissent from those it flatters and manifests the dangerous world that Neocons promise to protect us from.
    A description of The SST Borg would not be complete without noting the concomitant role of neoliberal economic ideology (aka crony capitalism). Economic power has been concentrated so much that a neoFeudal society is developing whose top-down nature is easier to control. In fact, money in politics has already effectively disenfranchised the citizenry in many Western nations.
    What is the Borg? It is an elite cult and a protection racket.

  48. 505th PIR says:

    Definitions are so limiting, but lets try: “Borgists” hmmm…Well, they seem to be spawned by empire and perceived omnipotence. Like everything else, empires seem to be occupying a smaller and smaller time frame as modernity J curves all things. Persians, Romans, Caliphates, Khannates, Ottomans etc. once spanned centuries. Now there is a quickening it would seem in terms of their arrival and passing. In all cases, they had a dominant world view guiding them and their elites that did not suffer rivals. What is unique about this go around is that two empires, one in name and one with much of the hubris of empire, namely the British Empire followed by “The American Century” came one after the other with a common language, religion (or shades of it) and much legal/philosophical DNA in common. Essentially and functionally, the torch was passed in a short span of time 1914-1945 resulting in the US possessing 50 percent of the world’s economy by 1945 and writing the rules of trade/international law largely adhered to from that point to this day. As “the leader of the free world” until 1990. It then assumed itself to be the leader of the world (“New World Order”)after the collapse of its rival. This as we can see was extremely presumptuous. The Borgists are a group of people who in the safety of such concentrated and unprecedented power developed an artificial world view, in a sense, a parallel universe of human and state relations that is divorced from actual reality, core human behavior, perceptions,yearnings and enfranchisement. Essentially, they have no understanding of or desire to understand, “the others”.
    The Borgists have grafted themselves to the corridors of power and every key institution in existence. They spare no expense at perpetuating their “reality” and as true believers, have no moral compunction about taking actions that are adverse to the rest of humanity (the real world within and without the United States with all its diversity of thought/self- actualization/realization). The Borgists have in many important ways hijacked a state protected by nuclear fire. Like a bacteria runaway staph infection, they are killing their host organism. At some point there may be no medicine to reverse the damage they are doing. The organs are shutting down/failing: The fifth estate, stove piped intelligence (Cheney/Rumsfeld),congressional disfunction, RTP, alliances with wahhabist entities, Citizens United, the setting aside of international and domestic law as suits the Borgists. The list is expansive and this can go on and on.
    In a nutshell: Borgists are 1) True Believers 2) Fantastically well armed and powerfully placed adherents to a parallel universe/world view of their own creation. 3) They suffer no rivals domestically or internationally and as true believers there is no limit to how far they will go to realize their “universe”. This of course means a domination of the world’s inner-space ie. spirituality, intellectual perceptions, morality,and essentially anything that orients humanity’s compass outside of the Borgist reality.

  49. All,
    A question about ‘the Borg’ is how far we are dealing with what is, in essence, a form of millenarian cult. Without wanting to exaggerate the importance of Fukuyama’s 1989 ‘End of History’ paper, some aspects of it are I think worth keeping in focus.
    The analysis which Fukuyama gave – which derived through his teacher Allan Bloom from the dubiously reconstructed ‘fascist’ Leo Strauss – rested on the reading of Hegel by Alexander Kojève, with whom Strauss corresponded.
    According to this, history had actually ended with the defeat of the Prussian Army by Napoleon in 1806, because then the ‘vanguard’ of humanity had attained ‘consciousness’.
    It is material that Kojève was a Russian emigré Stalinist-turned-EEC-bureaucrat. As has become increasingly clear, the various political projects are not as dissimilar as one might think. The underlying image, in each case, is of an élite imposing an ‘enlightened’ rationality upon the backward and primitive.
    If the ‘vanguard’ possesses ‘consciousness’, it follows logically that any opposition to it can only be explained either by ignorance or evil will. The appropriate modes of political action of the ‘vanguard’ are thus those of the elementary school teacher instructing backward pupils, and righteous violence.
    A catastrophe for the West, and a lot of others, had to do with the fact that when Fukuyama and others encountered Russian ‘liberals’ in the late ‘Eighties, a kind of echo chamber was created: they were told what they wanted to hear, and were stupid enough to believe it (that is what sitting at the feet of Allan Bloom does for you!)
    Accordingly, Fukuyama and his like concluded that they actually lived in a kind of partially realised millennium. It could now be assumed that the experience of post-1945 Western Europe was natural and normal.
    The combination of liberal economic and political arrangements, and deference to American leadership, found in the post-war ‘Pax Americana’, could be expected in the former Soviet space and also, critically, the Middle East and the Caucasus.
    Way back into history, those who dislike millenarian cults have pointed to their propensity to antinominianism – the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect.
    Related to this has been the suspicion that those who believe that they are instruments of the will of God (or, in secular terms, the ineluctable course of historical development, ‘consciousness’ of which is vouchsafed to the ‘vanguard’,) are liable to end up concluding that their will should be treated as the will of God.
    That projects for the redemption of mankind by the ‘elect’ could veil a will to absolute power, and a total lack of scruple in the means used to pursue it: this was an accusation levelled by its opponents against the Russian revolutionary tradition, and related accusations were commonly made by the British opponents of the Puritans.
    It seems to me that, if anything, such accusations apply to the ‘Borg’ rather better than they do to Lenin, or indeed, those who sailed on the ‘Mayflower’.

  50. Castellio says:

    The two most important “homes” to the Borg and their offspring are Wall Street and the Media. From there choices are made as to who will best represent their interests in government, and the politicians line up to do so, while vetting the top layers of the civil service so that only those willing to turn a blind eye to the obvious deceptions are employed.
    A good description of the dynamic as it operates with only one couple is here:

  51. Farooq says:

    You could turn a quote from Nietzsche(PBUH) on its head:
    “I am a law not only for my own kind. I am a law for all”
    Thus spake Borgista

  52. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    Borgs have probably existed in some form since our distant nomadic ancestors, who survived and often thrived by hunting and gathering nature’s surrounding bounty, began settling in specific areas where they could cultivate desirable plants and herd compliant animals. What follows is a discussion of Borgs in the context of western, industrial society and more specifically the United States.
    The Borg is an ever-evolving, informal federation of individuals who share a core set of beliefs that inform the actions these individuals take for the purpose of making their shared ideology manifest in society and preserving it so. The Borg resembles high school society in that it is made up of concentric circles. The Borgians compete subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, to maintain their positions and hopefully advance to higher status closer to the center.
    The most basic shared belief is that wealth bespeaks the merit, and thus only those who either are wealthy themselves or serve the interests of the wealthy deserve to direct society. Just as basic is the belief in the superiority of the neo-liberal regime of political economy. That is, that the workings of the economy should be left to the initiatives of individuals. Government’s role should in theory be limited only to providing for the public safety necessary to enable individuals to do so, and for them to keep the rewards of their efforts to themselves if they so desire. For those to whom such rewards of individual initiative do not accrue, for whatever reason, tough shit. A third basic shared belief is that the pursuit of wealth is its own reward, and that therefore the can be no end to the process of an individual’s accumulation of wealth, and the necessary powers to keep doing so.
    Thus those individuals who are accepted into the core inner circles of the Borg must either possess considerable wealth themselves, be perceived to be accumulating said wealth, be perceived to be competently managing it for other wealthy people, or be perceived to be competently performing other services in the interests of the wealthy. These latter, while not truly wealthy, are richly rewarded so long as their work is perceived to be useful by those who reside in more inner circles. Those who have accumulated great wealth are assumed by default to be eligible for inclusion in the Borg unless by word or action they are perceived to be otherwise.
    Beyond the core are rings of people who serve the interests of the Borg in varying degrees of self-awareness. Some who are ambitious seek to stand out as candidates for inclusion in more inner circles, by diligence and competence in performing their duties, by ingratiation, or both. Some have made a more or less conscious compromise to serve some interest of the Borg in return for modest, and sometimes not so modest, compensation and security.
    The Borg works to influence both domestic and foreign policy in the furtherance of its members’ perceived self interest. Acceptance of these perceptions enforced by group-think and thus change slowly.
    Because wealth is central to the Borg, most members of the inner circles thereof are major players in the economy. The segments most heavily represented in the Borg are those that have the most to gain, or to not lose, by influencing government policies. The present US Borg began to emerge in its present form during the latter part of the 19th century, a period that saw the discovery of petroleum, the invention of the internal combustion engine, the harnessing of electricity and the arrival of the multinational corporation. Initially the Borg consisted mainly of people involved in the finance, and natural resources segments.
    The Borg made its first major impacts on foreign policy in the 1890s with the instigation of a coup d’etat in Hawaii, and the declaration of war against Spain. Both initiatives were driven by the interests of US-based sugar companies that had made substantial investments in the previously independent Hawaiian Islands and the Caribbean colonies of Spain. These actions set the precedent by which US-based business interests have come to regard it as their right to harness US power to enable them operate anywhere in the world without being fettered by local laws and regulations, and without significant regard for the well being of the citizens of those countries except for those who agree to be their accomplices.
    Up until the middle of the 20th century the exercise of this “right” was applied vigorously only in the Latin America. After the Second World War left the United States as the only world power with assets to project power across the world’s oceans, the Borg began pushing the US federal government to support interventionist actions on its behalf elsewhere. This went into high gear during the Eisenhower era under the tutelage of John Foster and Allen Dulles, a brother act that largely controlled that administration’s foreign affairs until the former’s death in 1959. They had both previously been partners in the Sullivan and Cromwell law firm, a loyal servant of the Borg and its people since the firm’s founding in the 19th century.
    Beginning with the New Deal of the Franklin Roosevelt administration the federal government began to be much more involved in people’s daily lives. This accelerated considerably during World War II, and became a permanent condition as the subsequent peace devolved into the Cold War. Some have argued that the Borg of the time helped exaggerate the threat of the USSR in order to further the interests of its members. Whatever the case the post-war national security establishment, which is an order of magnitude larger than any peace time predecessor in the country’s history, is now a compliant accomplice in the Borg’s activities.
    Numerous industry segment are now represented in the Borg, but banking and finance are by far the most powerful, and perhaps always have been. The evidence of this status is the fact that in spite of literally millions of individual acts of perjury, forgery and fraud, In spite of a company publishing a price list for forged mortgage documents, in spite of a hedge fund general partner colluding with a bank to assemble bonds that were doomed to go into default so he could bet against them with derivatives, no senior bank, service company or hedge fund executive has been seriously investigated, let alone indicted, tried and jailed.
    In the early decades of the US Borg’s contemporary era, many of its people retained a sense of noblesse oblige, at least with regard to US citizens. This began giving way sometime in the second half of the 20th century as a fundamentalist version of neo-liberal ideology has taken hold. Key turning points were the founding of the “National Review” magazine by William Buckley, with his inherited money, and future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell’s writing of a memo to a leader of the US Chamber of Commerce laying out a program for more forcefully asserting the interests of business in the public space. In his law practice, Powell had been a minion of the tobacco industry branch of the Borg.
    In 2004 John Perkins published “The Confessions of and Economic Hit Man,” in which he exposed the US government’s intimate cooperation with US-based companies in coercing the cooperation of leaders of foreign countries in the businesses’ extraction of wealth from said countries. Perkins’ role was to develop outlandish economic growth forecasts to justify infrastructure projects far in excess of the real need. Loans would be made by Wall Street through the World Bank with the infrastructure as collateral, and when the revenues fell short of what was needed to service the debt, as it usually did, the IMF sheriff would come to town to demand austerity measures be imposed to assure repayment. Thus the citizens of what had been a poor country, instead getting the step up they had been promised, find themselves being impoverished even more. If the country’s leaders didn’t cooperate at any point in this process, they would find themselves expendable. Sometimes with “extrreme prejudice,” as they say.
    Last month Perkins published a revised and expanded edition, entitled “The New Confessions of and Economic Hit Man,” with some updating and fifteen additional chapters. He finds the techniques that were employed in his time (the 1970s) tame by comparison to what the Borg has been able to do since the collapse of the USSR. Far more disturbingly, he finds similar techniques now being widely employed by businesses against US citizens as well. So much for noblesse oblige.

  53. Chris Chuba says:

    There was a comedian who described the Soviet Union as a strange mixture of evil and incompetence, kind of like the Post Office with tanks. This is my take of the Borg. You have a foreign policy establishment who are the true believers, immersed in this notion of American Exceptionalism where we have the duty to impose order in a chaotic world and this means replacing evil authoritarian govts with Democratic ones.
    Then you have the drones in the media, columnists who are not that bright and novice politicians who outsource their foreign policy views to the Borq Queen.
    The Borg have an ideology that is immune from reality because it is protected by group think and it’s proclamations are instantly repeated by their drones in the MSM.
    Oh, the Borg on our planet, much like those on Star Trek, are relentless. They will never give up or begin to acknowledge that their quest for perfection (a world where the U.S. chooses which govt’s are legitimate) could possibly be counter-productive to stability. You will be assimilated in the name of freedom.
    This is not a conspiracy, it is the product of delusion and orthodoxy which is never challenged in their circles. It is 1962 and it will always be 1962.

  54. Larry Kart says:

    I think WRC’s definition above is right on the money.

  55. Kassandra says:

    I fully agree. Just two points: Having no principles and no confession nor motherland may well mean that you adhere to the belief that just this indifference towards any morality of principle is the source of your power – you are not limited in your options by values shared among humanity. IMHO, this is the core of fascism. For the middle level, a “hierarchy of self-selected psychopathic opportunists” is a good description.
    Secondly, dealing with a content population lowers the costs of exercising control via invisible hands. But you still need scarcity, at least as basic principle for the taken for granted economic discourse. In times of crisis, however, the gloves have to be taken off.

  56. Valissa says:

    For reference, here are some of PL’s prior descriptions of the Borg:
    “Corporate leadership is integrated into the world-wide informal group think network of governments, media. academia, think-tanks and mega-capitalists that I have shorthanded as the Borg.”
    The original Borg post…
    The Borg speaks with one voice.
    Though I prefer the term Borg as described in the above SST links, here is some reference background on the similar and more commonly used concept of the Deep State from “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government.” by Mike Lofgren. Some excerpts follow:
    [p. 5 Introduction] I have come to call this shadow government the Deep State. The term was actually coined in Turkey, and is said to be a system composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary, and organized crime. In John le Carre’s recent novel ‘A Delicate Truth’, a character in the book describes the Deep State as “the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall and Westminster.” I use the term to mean a hybrid association of key elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States with only limited reference to the consent of the governed as normally expressed through elections.
    [p. 10-11 Chapter on Beltwayland] … adjunct to this politicization was the rise of the tax-exempt foundation, which would soon become the farm team and temporary holding pen for the burgeoning class of operatives who would come to garrison the Deep State.
    Foundations have existed since the enactment of the federal income tax law of 1913 gave America’s tycoons an incentive to both dodge taxes and bypass state laws forbidding wills that seek to establish a perpetual inheritance. For the most part these early foundations engaged in … do-gooding. There were naturally some exceptions such as the right-wing American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938) and the left-wing Institute for Policy Studies (established in 1963)… That changed in the 1970’s with the rise of the politically focused foundation [aka think tanks]. The Greater Washington area is now home to over 1600 foundations of various kinds; the hordes of gunslinging grantsmen who try to maintain a facade of scholarly disinterest are functionally as much a part of the ecosystem as the lobbyists on K street.
    There is an entire chapter called “What is the Deep State” that goes into much more detail, but for the sake of brevity I’m just going to give a few snippets.
    [p. 34-36] … very powerful elements of corporate America. These elements include the military-industrial complex, Wall Street and – surprising as it may sounds to some – Silicon Valley (one former NSA insider told me that the spy agencies are completely dependent on Silicon Valley’s technology, communication backbones, and cooperation to even begin to perform their mission).
    … Seventy percent of the intelligence community’s budget goes to paying contracts with private sector companies. … These contractors increasingly set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they set the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly…
    [p. 41] How Groupthink Drives the Deep State… Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called “groupthink,” the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic in Washington: the town is characterized by sudden fads, be it biennial budgeting, grand bargains, or the invasion of countries that our citizens can barely locate on a map. … Just as in the military, everybody has to get on board, and it is not a career-enhancing move to question the mission. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for as always going to be small. … A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer weight of it’s boring ordinariness once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the ten thousandth time.
    … No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the draconian retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, it is easy to grow immune to the often Kafkaesque strangeness of one’s surroundings.
    This last quote about the groupthink and the cultural assimilation is a key part of the term Borg as I see it. Also Lofgren’s book does not really address is the issue of the MSM propaganda as a key component of the attempt to assimilate the entire US into the Borg way of thinking. These are some key reasons why I prefer the term Borg, especially it’s symbolization of the subsuming of individual identity and thinking into the collective, as directed by the Borgian elites.
    Apologies for the long post, but I’m hoping some find it helpful to see the larger context.

  57. BabelFish says:

    I believe that any definition that does not mention the callow disregard for human life that is often the result of their actions will miss part of the cost of having this pestilence among us.

  58. LJ says:

    “True Borgists are nearly all without real religious (theist)faith. the Borgist faith has more to do with Jean Jacques Rousseau than with Jesus. pl”
    I encourage you and this community to give this question time to breath. It is rather profound and deserves consideration. And calling it a kind of “faith” is spot on imo.
    I think the Borg is very old and has had many incarnations. I see it as driven by the dream of the final victory of an Uber class over those less worthy, and despises all things it does not control.

  59. Valissa says:

    Very well said!

  60. 505th PIR says:

    “The Borg made its first major impacts on foreign policy in the 1890s with the instigation of a coup d’etat in Hawaii, and the declaration of war against Spain.”….This model was most certainly perfected with the extermination/termination of the Indian nations from contact to Wounded Knee …the terms of occupation to present also seem quite in line with your narrative… Now the Borgists are devouring their domestic “inferiors” in like fashion as the international push-back grows abroad.

  61. charly says:

    “Our Values”?
    If i look at Syria than i find the values of the regime much closer to mine than the values of the rebels even if you exclude ISIS and Nusra. But the most important American Value may be that you should listen to Washington and in that case Syria, the capitalist state allied to the communist in the cold war, is deaf

  62. Charles Michael says:

    I can agree with the anglo-zionist Saker definition; but with the reserve that it can easily be turned in pure anti-jewish pass word by commentators.
    My appreciation of the deep state is that most of all they are complotists, non elected, secretive, false-flaggers, pretending to defend democracy while desacrating its basic fundations.

  63. VietnamVet says:

    “New World Order” is apt. It is their term. It best describes the destruction of old sovereign institutions to build the new global authoritarianism.

  64. Walrus says:

    “The Borg” is an American cabal that seeks to rule the world with the objective of advancing its members personal interests. To advance these interests it must both protect its existing assets while acquiring more. It is thus driven in equal parts by fear and greed.
    The Borgs primary asset is its members personal wealth – which represents the largest concentration of private money in world history. The continual fear of threats to their wealth, real or imagined, is one of the drivers of the Borgs strategy which is multi faceted and focussed on what they believe are the levers of power, at least in an American context.
    These levers are total control of the American political process, control of most media, infiltration of its supporters into positions of power in Government, the military and academia and of course total control of corporate America, especially the finance and defence sectors.
    Internationally, the Borg operates by purchasing or blackmailing foreign politicians as well as leveraging its influence via perverting American hard and soft power structures to support its projects.
    The Borg operates in secret, again because of fear, it’s methods at this stage of its existence revolve around the use of Americas hard military power to destroy perceived “existential threats” to its interests which it cunningly conflates with the interests of America as a whole. The net result of this has been the deaths of millions of people and the destruction at least of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya and now Syria. Minor skirmishes include Ukraine and Georgia.
    Conflating American and Borgist interests is carried out by manipulation of public American opinion by the use of the media and the opinion leaders and politicians it has purchased.
    It is important to understand that the Borg has no “great book” or revealed truth such as powers religion or political movements like communism. The Borg is completely amoral. It cares not for political parties nor the good of anyone other than its members, hence terms such as “right”, “Left”, “Liberal”, “Conservative”, “Libertarian”, etc. are meaningless when discussing anything to do with the Cabal. Similarly political issues and concepts such as “big government”, “welfare”, “abortion”. “Equal rights”, “discrimination”, “democracy”, “communism”, etc. are also equally meaningless. For example Borg propaganda is against big government – meaning a threat to its wealth, however it conveniently is in favour of the fruits of the same: a bloated defence capability and outsized domestic tools of repression (surveillance and militarised police) when it suits them. The Borg is also responsible for such things as the disgraceful American healthcare system, incarceration rates and the current dilapidated state of the country.
    The Borgs current project is the destruction of the Russian Federation, to be followed by the subjugation of China.

  65. Babak Makkinejad says:

    In other words, the Enlightenment Tradition & Program taken to its logical extremist conclusion.

  66. kooshy says:

    Colonel you are absolutely correct, and I didn’t meant, they are religious like if they are Christian, Jew or Muslim hardliner,I meant to say hey stick or think of their right to exceptionalism religiously. IMO for them their right to being exceptional is protected collectively and religiously.

  67. Jackrabbit says:

    I think that those who think the Borg pre-dates the rise of neoconservativism are barking up the wrong tree.
    IMO the Borg is not just wealthy cabals, which have a long history. The Borg’s protection racket and use of modern propaganda are fundamental aspects that didn’t exist prior to about the 1930’s – about the same time that neoconservativism was said to have originated.
    Zionists pushed American elites to embrace neoconservativism after the Vietnam defeat in an attempt to overcome the conservative inclination toward isolationism. By 1991 when the Soviet Union fell, the neocons were well positioned to make the case that the US military should not be reduced but its mission changed. This argument naturally welcomed by the MIC.
    Of course when you are spending money unnecessarily to principally benefit another country then you need the support of powerful people and propaganda. This is the job that the Borg does. Today every member of Congress pledges to support Israel and every Presidential candidate supports Israel and more defense spending.

  68. Nana2007 says:

    Borg: an international criminal syndicate seeking to impose the directive “profit over people” under the guise of spreading democracy. It’s ultimate goal is to enshrine the principal of “profit over people” in transnational governing bodies of unelected experts composed of corporate stooges. The TTP would be the first step in sealing control of their protection rackets. Control would be forever, or a very long time. They engage in a form of Orewellian newspeak, the hallmark of which is cognitive dissonance. A Maragaret Thatcher quote provides a good illustration of how contradictory statements are piled together :””They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.” – in an interview in Women’s Own in 1987. In other words baffle them with BS down to core principles and rinse repeat til infinity.

  69. no one says:

    I think many here are describing a cabal. IMO there is no Borg unless the cabal has multiple levels of mindless drones under its control.

  70. turcopolier says:

    I would argue that the officer corps is by and large not Borgist. It has its own insular and often blockheaded motivations. In general the officer corps is not good at “the vision thing” because that has been bred out of the force by generations of mirror image promotion selection conducted by blockheads. OTOH the recent purge by normal retirement of the Chiefs has produced a Borgist slave class at the top in the military. My own example is illustrative of the process over the decades. I was on the draft BG list one year and my name was removed to make room for a 4 star’s pet dog who never questioned his master’s every whim. Among the general caste the worst thing you can say of any officer is that he is “disrespectful,” i.e., argues with you. I was an SES-4 later but that was a poor consolation. pl

  71. Nancy K says:

    The Borg reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, fooling all of us. All show, no substance, empty suits.

  72. Larry Kart says:

    But, per this essay by the late George Lichtheim, Kojeve and Leo Strauss were pretty much at each other’s throats:

  73. Valissa says:

    Thanks for the link! A great definition by an insider and true believer in the Borg’s benefit to society.
    My emotional reaction to it 😉

  74. different clue says:

    I remember President Bush the Elder being the first person I saw speak about the creation of a New World Order. Anti-National Sovereignty-destroying Free Trade Agreements were to be one of the tools for imposing that New World Order.
    It makes me think that there may be three semi-nebulous things overlapping like circles in a Venn Diagram: the New World Order, the Deep State and the Borg. Perhaps the Borg can be more easily described than exactly defined?

  75. different clue says:

    Interesting. If the EuroCrats became zioneutral and indifferent about Israel they would still be Eurocrats. Perhaps one could think of them as a semi-separate Borgish group . . . the EuroBorg.

  76. sans racines says:

    The Borg occupies a role which is inevitably filled in any complex living system that has evolved to a certain point – that of extracting maximum benefit with minimal effort from a pre-existing Host. The consequent effects usually do not typically benefit the Host itself and may be fatal to it. Certain instantiations of the Borg are poor at adapting beyond a limited frame of reference and can be slow to change tack – failure to comprehend that it is essential to form a mutually agreeable Host-Borg accommodation at some point leads to the expulsion of such Borgian constructs. Those that learn to play the win-win game survive the longest.

  77. Chris Chuba says:

    “I would argue that the officer corps is by and large not Borgist.”
    I definitely agree with you. In every article that I read about U.S. policy in recent years, the only opposition to the Borg has originated from the military; specifically in Libya and Syria.
    Lord help us if we all start posting examples of Borg writing, as it can fill entire encyclopedias, but this stood out because it is from Max Boot, a strong advocate for the last Iraq war.
    Here he reveals that he is an adviser to Marco Rubio and is praising Rubio’s excellent judgment.
    It hits the standard themes that the absence of U.S. power creates a vacuum and the promotion of Democracy [by force] is an urgent requirement to create stability… He then proceeds to re-write history about Syria, Libya, and Iraq.
    There is an interesting contrast between the Putin doctrine vs. the Borg doctrine.
    Putin favors the preservation of existing govt institutions while the Borg are the table turning activists.
    I wish there was an appreciation for Putin’s words starting with his 2013 NYT Op-Ed which was summarily dismissed in the U.S. He has been pushing a consistent theme that is in stark contrast to Borg assimilation. Putin states, ‘we must respect that we are all different’. Wow, I wonder if Putin has watched Star Trek TNG because that’s an outright plea not to be assimilated.

  78. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    In re: “I think the Borg is very old and has had many incarnations. I see it as driven by the dream of the final victory of an Uber class over those less worthy, and despises all things it does not control.”
    Yes!! And they are closer than we would like to think to that final victory.

  79. Mark Logan says:

    I can not imagine doing better that David H’s wonderful contribution, but the one thing I would add to the discussion is a line from this scene:
    …by assimilating other beings we bring them closer to perfection.”
    This defines our Borg, IMO. It’s the key rationalization they all make. How else can they be differentiated from the merely greedy and self-serving?
    All metaphors are imperfect, and with that cavot I’ll propose that what we have resembles the offspring of an tragic mating of the character above and these folks…

  80. Parj says:

    Is Soros one of the top Borg ?

  81. LJ says:

    My working definition: a messianic collective which transcends the traditional distinctions of left and right and which seeks to weaken and ultimately eliminate national and cultural identities towards the establishment of elite and neo-pagan uber class. Most Borgistas serve the collective and its agenda in complete ignorance through their organization into various think tanks and professional associations.

  82. Chemosabe says:

    The Borg: An American dominated global cabal that seeks complete political, economic, and military supremacy on a worldwide basis.

  83. Jack says:

    “…the workings of the economy should be left to the initiatives of individuals. Government’s role should in theory be limited…”
    This exists only in the rhetoric of the Borg. Just like the use of public safety as rhetorical cover to increase the scope of the national security state. No different than the rhetoric around banking regulation with the several thousand page Dodd-Frank that has only further concentrated banking assets in the hands of the few. Or the rhetoric around Sarbanes-Oxley which has done nothing to make financial statements more transparent. Or the rhetoric around Green energy that leads to Solyndra and the huge subsidies for ethanol. Every action to increase state power to benefit the cabal is obscured with rhetoric.
    The Borg uses the rhetoric of free enterprise but in reality increases the regulatory, tax and compliance burdens to such an extent that small entrepreneurs can’t compete with the oligarchy who can hire the armies of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to ensure they can take advantage of loopholes inserted specifically for them in the arcane complexity of these laws. No, the era of simplicity and clarity of Glass-Steagall was repealed by Clinton and the Republicans in Congress. When banks routinely pay fines of billions for acts of price fixing and money laundering and pharmaceutical companies also routinely pay fines for violations of the law its all kabuki. The revolving door between regulator and regulated, military leaders and defense industries, Congressmen and K Street are precisely to prevent the competition from small entrepreneurs.

  84. Jack says:

    We should also examine the role of the Borg in our economical and financial affairs. The trade agreements that strip sovereignty, the huge transfers through government programs to the few, the increasing use of leverage backstopped by government, the growing concentration of economic power through legislation of complex laws, the use of regulation to stifle competition, privatization of speculative profits and socialization of losses, the immunity from criminal activity of the politically connected AND most importantly the role of IO in furthering the concentration of wealth.

  85. The wisdom of the committee is on display in these comments. In my opinion, there are many hits and only a few misses. Maybe this can be another piece in the puzzle. Wallerstein’s world model of the core, semi-periphery and periphery societies offers another way to view what we are calling the Borg. I’m not referring to his purely economic state-centric model, but to an idea that came out a discussion of Wallerstein back in my grad school days. The Borg is the core of society or societies that freely communicates among themselves to further their goals of amassing wealth, power and prestige. They continually attempt to mold the world into a more efficient system to meet their goals. They co-opt those in the semi-periphery by sharing a bit of their wealth, power and prestige to assist the core in extracting from the periphery. In other words, bribery. This semi-periphery is the Borg’s flying monkeys. The Borg can use raw, violent force to achieve its aims or simply rig the economic, political and societal rules to get what they want. This is done on the local, national or international levels. They also use the art of the deal and the art of the con as more sophisticated methods to mine the periphery.
    The central mechanism that allows this all to happen is the core’s ability to control the flow of communications. Peripheral groups or societies are not allowed to freely communicate with each other while the Borg are free to bully and con all… including themselves. This can be summed up in the idea of full spectrum dominance.

  86. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I think these (your earlier definition coupled with the gangster mode of operation) pretty much nail the definition. One could add a total absence of a sense of irony or self-awareness (perhaps the two go hand in hand). (I still shudder at the sight of Richard Holbrooke giddily talking about “bombs for peace,” while describing the air war on Serbia, and he was supposedly one of more reasonable ones.)

  87. Ingolf says:

    To my mind, 505th PIR and David Habakkuk come closest to getting at the essence of the Borg.
    Both take account of the highly unusual circumstances in which the US found itself post-1945; utterly dominant in all spheres, (mostly) well loved and certainly respected. Combined with the sense of manifest destiny threaded through America’s history, it’s hardly odd that certain presumptions put down deep roots.
    Until 1989, remnants of the old ways combined with the unavoidable reality of an opposing superpower largely stopped these presumptions from metastasising. Post the implosion of the Soviet Union, the restraints were gone. Here’s 505th PIR:
    “The Borgists are a group of people who in the safety of such concentrated and unprecedented power developed an artificial world view, in a sense, a parallel universe of human and state relations that is divorced from actual reality, core human behavior, perceptions,yearnings and enfranchisement. Essentially, they have no understanding of or desire to understand, “the others”.
    And, perhaps, no perceived need to do so. At any rate, the combination of unfettered real-world power and many decades of relentless conditioning to believe in one’s own virtue were always going to be a toxic blend. By adding fear and rage to the mix, 9/11 ensured any remaining voices of moderation would be lost in an orgy of righteousness.
    David considers how these regrettable but understandable developments can so easily mutate into something even uglier when the elite comes to view itself as uniquely “enlightened”.
    “If the ‘vanguard’ possesses ‘consciousness’, it follows logically that any opposition to it can only be explained either by ignorance or evil will. The appropriate modes of political action of the ‘vanguard’ are thus those of the elementary school teacher instructing backward pupils, and righteous violence.”
    All the many selfish interests pursuing their own aims simply form parts of this attitudinal ecosystem (the Borg). They may often push and pull in different directions but still probably feel comforted and justified by a deep-seated conception of rightness. At the very least, it’s a useful rationalisation.
    Once this point is reached, there aren’t many roads leading back to republican sanity. None, at any rate, that aren’t evisceratingly painful.

  88. Jackrabbit says:

    IMO attempts to root the Borg/neocons in the American tradition is disinformation.
    The Borg started with neoconservativism and has grown beyond that.

  89. Castellio says:

    “I think that those who think the Borg pre-dates the rise of neoconservativism are barking up the wrong tree.”
    I concur.

  90. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think your point of view does not explain the ubiquity of Borg outside of the United States.
    In my opinion, this is a civilizational phenomenon – perhaps enhanced by the power and prestige of the United States as the highest exponent of the Western Diocletian Culture and Civilization – but was not originating in the United States – unless you want to claim that JJ Rousseau was the first American.

  91. ToivoS says:

    perhaps I should have put “our values” in quotation marks since I do not believe that the US is spreading “my” values. But the government does speak for the American people as misguided it might be.

  92. YT says:

    Destroyer of worlds, perhaps?
    “In pursuit of perfection in human society, we are making deserts so that we can call them Peace.”

  93. ISL says:

    Late to this post, but I think two aspects of the Borg are missed.
    1. The Borg do not represent anything that is not a threat – i.e., critique of the Borg system is invisible. This is the complement of the state of denial (per no one, who hit it with souless zombies).
    2. The uber wealthy (those 62 folk who OXFAM says own half the planet) are not assimilated in the Borg. They understand very well how things work (how they got to where they are) – they are the beneficiaries of the Borg. But, per the TPP etc., the Borg may be centered in the US, but I don’t see it affiliated with the US. Current flag of convenience.

  94. Balint Somkuti says:

    For me Borg is a monotheistic, full fledged religion of the individual freedom. Monotheistic because it does not accept and tolerate all other world views or ideologies except its own, with the notable exception of its forerunners like communism and (neo)liberalism, hoping those believers too will realize soon the only „Truth” (see ahl al-Kitab – People of the Book). Communities, ideas other than its own (no matter how peaceful or tolerant they are) are hostile, heretic and to be annihilated, and their believers are either to be destroyed or much better converted. Its declared enemy are God, country, family. Its declared aim, the stubborn faith in continous progress, discarding all which are declared out-of-date by the higher clergy. In that aspect it is very similar to takfiri jihadism, or the faith of the Necromongers in the sci-fi movie Chronicles of Riddick. Apart from being completely exclusive it also aims to control all aspects of human life even the most intimate.
    Since it completely lacks all forms of tolerance or understanding there can be nothing, but continous total war until the final victory. Only feigned or even outright false truces are acceptable, but only with complete, and open contempt of the other parties, and only for the time being. Countries do not matter (not even the United States or Israel) since all nations states will soon cease to exist under the new world order, ruled by the chosen ones. Yes Jewish and/or American leaders matter the most, and they are to be assimilated first (or most have already been) due to their high influence, but if you see how eagerly they accept converts from other nations you will see this is not a race issue. In many aspects the Borg can be compared to early Islam, or the already mentioned Necromonger cult. Converts, especially zealous neophites who joined without any coercion are the flagbearers of this new religion. Since it is a tribal system from the roots (much like again early Islam), and most of the founders have either jewish and/or american roots it might look as anglo-zionism, but it is much more. It is the evolved version of the French Revolution’s artificial religion of the reason. A religion where no God exists only the Man.
    If any outsider understands the core issue, this new godless religion, of the Borg, the rest is only decoration. Financial, media, or even military influence is only the topping of the cake. For me the way to fight the Borg is to show the „True Believers” and the bystanders, the majority of the population, the fence sitters who will comply with any power just like they did in ALL dictatorship, that there is ANOTHER way. That the Borg’s view is not the only answer. An by that I refute the very core credo of the Borg. That there is no other way, but theirs.

  95. Peter Reichard says:

    As my editor I have to admit your language flows more smoothly but we can’t leave out a reference to group think, an essential component to what the Borg is, how it functions and why it is so dangerous.I assume you liked my second sentence as is.

  96. jld says:

    Best answer so far IMO but we need to distillate this in two or three sentences at most.

  97. Jackrabbit says:

    The problem with this is that neoconservativism thought originated before 1945 and was largely ignored until the 1970’s.
    So neoconservativism didn’t spring up as a result of the new situation that America found itself in. And neoconservative theory is a general theory of governance.
    Also, any attempt to root neoconservativism or the ‘Borg’ in the American experience is disinformation. Neocons WANT their movement to be seen as American so that it is more easily accepted. ‘Manifest Destiny’ had specific historical circumstances that are very different from today’s world.

  98. Jackrabbit says:

    To follow-up on my last sentence:
    We have lost the power to say ‘no’ to Israel. Despite their NEED for our support, and the extensiveness of that support, our government is so compromised that Israel can largely do as it pleases. The “Two-State” solution, for example, is a joke.
    Also, I want to note that, while Israel is the Zionist dog-whistle, the Borg’s concerns has grown into something more comprehensive: the New World Order. An earlier comment mentioned “revisionist Zionism”, which I think captures the same idea.

  99. I did. Group consciousness is certainly a feature and I’m interested in how it is done.

  100. Larry Kart,
    Thanks for the reference. I have read through the essay, but not need to think about it further.
    Here, I am going into some areas where my knowledge is very shallow, and others I know somewhat better. Some thoughts for what they are worth.
    What I am reasonably clear about is that Fukuyama came to Kojève through Allan Bloom, who came to him through Strauss. The exact intellectual relationships involved, however, are harder to pin down – as also, that between Irving Kristol and Strauss.
    Involved here is the question of how important distinctively ‘Straussian’ notions are in ‘neoconservatism’, and also the question of how both ‘Straussian’ and more generally ‘neoconservative’ attitudes to the myths of American nationalism are confused, and how far they are cynical.
    Also involved here are underlying differences among European Jews which echo onwards.
    A key text remains the letter which Strauss wrote from Paris in May 1933 to Karl Löwith, and a key passage in it the following:
    ‘We must repeat: we, ”men of science,” – as our predecessors in the Arab Middle Ages called themselves – non habemus locum manentem, sed quaerimus … And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l’homme to protest against the shabby abomination.’
    (See .)
    Actually, the argument that the only possible ‘liberal’ critique of Nazism depended upon a belief in ‘human rights’ – as we would put it today – is quite extraordinarily intellectual provincial.
    The possibility that political egalitarianism could generate ‘Caesarism’ was something which was central to a tradition of liberal thinking. A crucial argument behind Tocqueville’s recommendation of American democracy as a model to France had been the contention that, as it were, the egalitarian ‘genie’ could not be put back in the bottle.
    This, however, led naturally on to an historical analysis of the conditions which had made it possible for Americans successfully to combine equality and liberty – and a parallel historical analysis into the conditions which had made it difficult for the French to do so, in which a key point of comparison was with British experience.
    A whole point about this basic intellectual framework is that it sidelines argument from first principles – such as the ‘rights of man’. What counts is to understand the specific alternatives available at a given time, in the light of a genuinely ‘scientific’ analysis, which must have the way that societies are shaped by their histories at its core. One could call it ‘historical sociology’, if one wished.
    Depending on the results of the analysis, a basically ‘Tocquevillian’ framework of thought can lead to widely different prescriptions. So in pre-1914 Russia, it could and did lead to the conclusion that a liberal revolution should be avoided at all costs. It could also lead quite rational people in diverse situations – and there were plenty of such people, among those in Germany who welcomed the end of ‘Weimar’ – to conclude that ‘Caesarism’ was the least worst alternative.
    However, in the light of what happened, those who argued that a ‘Caesarist’ solution to the crisis of liberalism in Europe was likely to be catastrophic were shown to be right.
    Ironically, some of the greatest practitioners of ‘historical sociology’ at the time Strauss wrote his letter to Löwith were also in Paris. The communication which Élie Halévy gave to the Société Française de Philosophie in November 1936 on the ‘Era of Tyrannies’, and the subsequent discussions – including a notable contribution by Marcel Mauss – have worn very well with time.
    Both writers explicitly harked back, just as much as Strauss did, to classical arguments. So also, in England, did the philosopher-historian R.G. Collingwood, whose work in the late ‘Thirties was essentially devoted to providing a philosophical underpinnings for his polemic against appeasement.
    And this kind of ‘historical sociology’ could also appear in works of fiction. Recalling arguments in Germany of the Thirties in his 1947 novel ‘Doktor Faustus’, Thomas Mann harked back to arguments in the ‘Twenties, in which Tocqueville had been central.
    But then Mann, whose intellectual roots were in German conservative ideas, had shifted decisively towards supporting the Weimar Republic, following the assassination in 1922 of Walter Rathenau. Having kept Germany’s failing industrial war effort going in the face of the British naval blockade, Rathenau had then, as Foreign Minister for the infant Weimar Republic, clearly grasped the overwhelmingly need for a cautious and prudent foreign policy.
    That he of all people had been assassinated by ‘Freikorps’ extremists provided, as Mann realised, an ominous warning of how what a ‘Caesarist’ alternative to Weimar might look like.
    (See .)
    I just came across an interesting recent discussion of Strauss’s polemic against Collingwood. In it, the former is quoted as writing that the latter ‘got in the difficulties because he did not have the courage to say that modern liberal democracy is the best political system’.
    But the whole essence of Collingwood’s approach, as of that Halévy and Mauss, implied that to talk of the ‘best political system’ in the abstract is stupid. What counts are the concrete possibilities available in particular places at particular times. All these writers, and also Mann, were all too aware of problems associated with ‘modern liberal democracy’.
    They were simply convinced that the available alternatives, in the societies in which they lived, were likely to be very much worse.
    As the approach of these three writers illustrates, this does not mean that ideas and experiences from very places and times may not be relevant to the present. But to learn what one can from Plato or Aristotle – or indeed Hobbes or Machiavelli – it is necessary first to locate the problems they were dealing with in their own specific times and places.
    From such a perspective, the exchange between Strauss and Kojève appears an exchange between two different forms of inanity. So on the one hand the former – to quote Lichtheim – ‘thinks in terms of archetypal situations which the classics have described once and for all’; while for the other philosophy is supposed to guarantee knowledge of some kind of ineluctable destination in history. Despite the radical difference in their views, they have certain fundamental elements in common.
    Their ‘philosophy’ is taken by both as giving them something of distinctive value they can contribute to statecraft. At the same time, it marginalises the need for the kind of concrete knowledge of specific situations on which effective statecraft actually depends. By contrast, the approaches alike of Collingwood and of Halévy and Mauss push one back to the need for detailed empirical knowledge.
    And there is here a further irony. Central to Strauss’s interpretation of Machiavelli was the argument that the apparent contradictions in his writings indicate that he was concealing ‘esoteric’ meanings.
    However, a contemporary British scholar in the tradition of Collingwood, David Wootton, has argued – persuasively in my view – that the apparent contradictions between the ‘Discourses’ and the ‘Prince’ derive from a difference of context.
    At the time the ‘Prince’ was written, it was assumed that the Pope would take the necessary steps to ensure that his family, the Medici, acquired an hereditary state. Accordingly, the book he wrote – in which he was, among other things, pitching for a job – was not about his native city of Florence.
    As Wootton writes:
    ‘If ”The Prince” is not about how to acquire power in a free city, then it is perfectly possible that Machiavelli could have written it while at the same time writing a book in praise of republican politics. He could quite reasonably hold that feudal Naples and bourgeois Florence would benefit from quite different sorts of government.’
    So once one escapes from the belief in context-free truths – which both Strauss and Kojéve share – one finds oneself, at the start of the sixteenth-century, with ideas that do indeed have continuing relevance today.
    If one is fortunate enough to live in a society whose history is conducive to the maintenance of constitutional government, one should at all costs seek to preserve that. This is precisely what the intellectual contributions of Strauss, Bloom, and Irving Kristol have not helped Americans do.

  101. Croesus says:

    It’s unfortunate that not more is available about Zoroaster.
    I’ve been to Yazd, and climbed the Tower of Silence. There’s a whole world of ‘gods’ and definitions of god that still remain to be explored.
    This fellow Bill Donahue lacks the gravitas that our contemporary media demands; he would never be invited to appear on the Sunday talkies, for an example of how out-of-the-mainstream he is, but this little talk offered up enough tantalizing clues to induce me to read the Old Testament and especially stories regarding Cyrus and the Jews in an entirely different way
    Also, this conversation was also motivation to dig deeper into Zoroaster

  102. Fred says:

    A good point. We should not leave out the other favorite philosopher of the enlightenment, Descartes. To twist his phrase:
    “I live, therefore I deserve; your money, your land, your obedience”
    We could have a nice exercise in rhetoric with that one.

  103. Castellio says:

    I would like to suggest that how one defines the Borg has at least something to do with what one is willing to do about it…
    If it is a financial cabal then anti-racketeering charges could be put forward. If it is a communications network then alternate communication platforms can be developed. If it is a domination of the civil service than analysis of methods of choice and promotion of public positions can be made known and contested (Chas Freeman anyone?). If it exists through giving funds, then people can give funds and raise funds for alternate uses. If it is all of the above then a series of engagements are necessary.
    If it is primarily (and in some cases solely) defined through “intellectual antecedents” and generalized as “civilizational”, then what, exactly, is the process of engagement?

  104. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Thank you for your comments.
    I have most recently been influenced by Mary Settegast on my thinking about Zoroaster. She quotes Roman and Greek historians that date his time to 8600 years ago.
    I found the stories of the Old Testament about the Great King curious in that they never admit that there could have been a community of Believers (in one God) who were not Jews – as though the Great King had acquired his religious beliefs out of nowhere.
    It is another one of those amusing things to me…claiming exclusivity on the invention/discovery of Monotheism…while the Old Testament explicitly attributes it to the Great King.
    I think also the real authentic message of Zoroaster is lost.
    I speculate that the dualism attributed to him was a late development, just like the developments in the United States among many Protestant denominations that equate God with Pure Good etc. They could be, in my opinion, well on their way to dualism – just give them another millennium.

  105. Jackrabbit says:

    Thank you for the critique of the intellectual substance behind the Borg.
    I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion.

  106. Croesus says:

    I disagree.
    Neoconservatism could not have succeeded, or found a perch in American institutions, unless aspects of those institutions, or more broadly, of the American mindset, had not predisposed the US to support neoconservatism.
    I would trace the beginning of institutional expression of that predisposition to the McKinley- Teddy Roosevelt-era; a major leap into the neocon-receptive Borg-abyss in the Wilson administration; and full-blown, virulent, radically- off- the- path- of- George Washington’s- Farewell- Address (GWFA) prescription- for- foreign policy in the Franklin Roosevelt admin. Ever since FDR led USA into war in Europe and emerged seemingly triumphant, US history is pegged to that glorious period when USA introduced a “New World Order.” According to one biographer, G H W Bush decided to invade Iraq in 1990-91 to “redeem the promise of those who fought in WWII, to create a New World Order.” (see “Into the Desert,” Jeff Engel, ed.)
    Once US institutions went off the GWFA path into full-spectrum neoconservative Borgianism, it only accelerated in virulence and destructive power and hubris.
    I still hear (in my mind) Mitt Romney campaigning to be the “president of the United States and the Leader of the Free World.” Only a few days ago C Span’s Steve Scully did a PSA spot for C Span’s coverage of the “campaign for the presidency and the Leader of the Free World.” Who counts the votes of the “Free World?”

  107. Mishkilji says:

    The Borg has been growing for over a hundred years.
    This is the best summation of America’s Borg mentality:

  108. Ex-PFC Chuck, 505th PIR, Jack,
    A great deal to think about in what you all have said.
    At the risk of responding before I have thought adequately. One needs to look at complex interplays between what might be called structures of myth, and concrete interests.
    To refer to ‘myth’ here, does not mean that the structure of ideas involved should be judged in simple ways. Commonly, they have elements of truth and falsity.
    So, one modern ‘myth’ is that of the ‘invisible hand’: an ‘individualist’ society, where people simply pursue their own personal self-interest, can be expected naturally to generate outcomes in the interest of all.
    Another modern ‘myth’ is that of the ‘rational planner’ – and to see how complex the issues involved are, simply look at the ambiguous relations, in Britain, between ‘Fabian’ socialism and Stalinism.
    A third myth is that of the heroic ‘entrepreneur’. As to how complex the issues involved are, think of the origins and legacies of, say, Andrew Carnegie, and George Soros, to take two examples from an American context.
    But then, that takes one into another very complex area – to do with the role of Jews in all this, about which inhibitions prevent people confronting the extraordinary complexities involved.
    And part of the history in Britain, is that if one wants to look more for models of prudent, practical, and humane ‘business sense’, many of them are Jewish.
    If you look at these ‘myths’, however, they have an odd way of, as it were, sliding into each other.
    So, when the ‘myth’ of the ‘rational planner’ fell into disrepute, in the late ‘Seventies and ‘Eighties, what appeared to follow was a resurrection of the ‘myth’ of the ‘invisible hand’.
    But then it emerged that we also had a combination of the myth of the heroic ‘entrepreneur’ – Goldman Sachs et al – with another version of that of the ‘rational planner’: the ‘central banker’, in the form of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen.
    In foreign policy, all this had a complex relationship with American ‘myths’. In particular, it involved the abandonment of the complexities of a ‘myth’ of the United States, which came out of European ‘republican’ traditions, with ‘myth’ which bore the mark of the complex origins of American ‘nationalist’ traditions.
    In turn, this has been amalgamated with different kinds of European ‘myth’.

  109. C Webb says:

    I imagine the term ‘Borg’ as it is described in this blog refers those elected and appointed officials whose actions serve the interests of the ‘power elite’ over the interests of the public.
    C. Wright Mills
    G. William Domhoff: Who Rules America Today? (2014)
    These are the most sensible explanations I have read on this topic.

  110. red brick says:

    The Council on Foreign Relations is the most important meeting point for US economic and foreign policy elites. It thus is central to the existence and reproduction of the BORG and its grand strategy of aggressive primacy globally.
    The best study on the CFR is Shoup and Minter’s 1977 book, Imperial Brain Trust. It is very good.
    Shoup has just published a new book on the CFR called Wall Street’s Think Tank.
    In a summary article he writes that:
    “The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the think tank of monopoly-finance capital, Wall Street’s think tank. It is also a membership organization: the ultimate networking, socializing, strategic-planning, and consensus-forming institution of the dominant sector of the U.S. capitalist class. The CFR’s activities help unite the capitalist class to become not just a class in itself, but also a class for itself. It is the world’s most powerful private organization, the “high command” body of the U.S. plutocracy. The Council has an almost century-long history of forming study groups to plan the United States’ overall “grand” strategic policies. It sets the agenda for debate, builds consensus among both the powerful and attentive publics, and then inserts its own network of people into public office to implement its favored doctrines in the real world.”

  111. turcopolier says:

    C. Webb
    You imagine incorrectly. The network of networks that I shorthand as the Borg generally includes people and groups in; government, business, media, think tanks, media, and the big city elites. They constitute a collective mentality that shares a wealth of assumptions about the progress of human political and social culture in a linear fashion toward what they imagine to be a universally regulated utopian future. In pursuit of what they imagine to be an inevitable future they do not shrink from any means they think necessary. pl

  112. Ingolf says:

    Is the Borg ubiquitous outside the US? I guess it depends on one’s definition so things quickly become somewhat circular. At any rate, European “Atlanticists” certainly belong within this “network of networks” as the Colonel terms it.
    To you, it’s a “civilisational phenomenon”. That may be so but if the term “the Borg” is to have any useful meaning, doesn’t it need to distinguish between a vague background belief in the perfectibility of man and those who are eager and willing to force its arrival?
    Is the Borg, as you seem to suggest, more or less synonymous with neoconservatism? I don’t think so. Crucially important though it is, liberal interventionists, for example, also have a large role to play, as do all those who for their own reasons, whether selfish or ideological, broadly fall into line with the aims of what I see as this disparate group.
    Your’s and Babak’s comments (and mine of course) illustrate the difficulty of arriving at a mutually acceptable definition. There’s a entirely natural tendency for each of us to project onto the term our own favoured hobgoblins or hobbyhorses.

  113. Valissa says:

    Per PL’s response below regarding… “shares a wealth of assumptions about the progress of human political and social culture in a linear fashion toward what they imagine to be a universally regulated utopian future”
    A good book to read to understand this religio-political belief in human progress and how truly destructive it is:
    Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, by John Gray

  114. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The self-image of Borg is reminiscent of Hegel’s characterization of the Prussian State at his time – 1821, I believe – as the Highest Realization of the Absolute Spirit that men could achieve in a State – the perfectibility of man is not a central pillar of it; belief in its own universality is its defining characteristic.
    The English knew that things could be improved, but only so much. The English, informed by a sort of Medievalism that looked at specifics and particulars, did not delude themselves that their Empire was anything but a resource extraction engine.

  115. sillybill says:

    This has been a great thread, it will be interesting to see how all the comments inform the promised post. Here’s my two cents:
    The Borg is a group of decision makers comprised of rich individuals and families, corporate execs, government officials, media interests, think tanks, PR firms, some academics, and the financial industry.
    The foundations of The Borg rest on the remnants of the British Empire, and while they include much of ‘the West’ they are mostly American.
    It’s ideology is a mashup of crony capitalism, American exceptionalism, racist social Darwinism, and globalized Manifest Destiny, along with a dose of Zionism big enough to choke a horse.
    The Borg’s purpose is: Control of it’s environment, Domination of it’s rivals, and Enrichment of it’s membership.
    It’s tools are: as much government power as it’s able to grab, media control of popular and ‘middle management’ opinion, and a weaponized commodity distribution and financial system.
    It has infiltrated and attempts to control/influence the organs of the state (DOJ, DOS, DOD, IC, the FED) to advance it’s interests and squash it’s rivals.
    Many, if not most, of The Borg don’t think of themselves as members of this group (regardless of label) but they do think of themselves as ‘insiders’ and ‘cream of the crop’. This elitist self reference combined with group-think and over-confident control of the organs of power and influence leads inevitably to hubris, incompetence, and abuse of those not ‘On Team’. It is ruthless to those without power who exist outside it’s sphere of influence.
    The Borg has no ‘central committee’, rather it is a loosely affiliated group that coalesces around an elitist sense of group self interest. There are competing in-groups whose power/influence ebbs and flows.
    The Borg’s personnel ride the revolving door merry-go-round between government, industry, finance, NGOs, and think tanks.
    The Borg numbers probably between 10 and 15 thousand people. It exists as a macro-parasite on the citizenry’s blood and money. Possibly the only thing keeping us out of slavery is The Borg’s pre-occupation with The Game, and the constant back stabbing between internal factions and external rivals.

  116. turcopolier says:

    “…it will be interesting to see how all the comments inform the promised post” That will not happen. I will judge what the Borg is or is not and I have already stated my position below. pl

  117. Ingolf says:

    I don’t know, Babak. Yes, belief in the universality of the western model no doubt still thrums in the background. Convenient, comfortable and arguably even rational up to a point. Is it truly what drives the members of the Borg though?
    The reality, I suspect, is more tawdry and conventional. Aside from the ever present play of ambition and avarice, the biggest spur may well be astonishment that their right to rule the roost is being challenged. Not so much in any grand strategic sense (although they must feel that unfolding too) but in a thousand infuriating and apparently random pinpricks. What’s a hegemon to do?
    These are confusing times, and they’re likely to get a whole lot more confusing. Attributing any sort of ideological consistency to the Western elite may be an error. Much, maybe most, of what we’re seeing is probably reactive rather than the playing out of some cleverly constructed unified plan.

  118. different clue says:

    Perhaps the Borg is their battering ram? Perhaps the Borg is their useful idiots?

  119. different clue says:

    We could still attrit and degrade its various organs and arms of coercion and control in the ways you describe. It would be a tedious and unglamorous several-decades-long process, but it could be done if enough people believe it could be done and all lift a well-aimed and well-informed finger in the effort.

  120. Jackrabbit says:

    Well, you haven’t addressed the substance of the objection to a ‘Borg. that pre-dates neoconservativism.
    As I wrote above, the US didn’t take up neoconservativism right after WWII. AND, neoconservativism didn’t gain popularity until after the Vietnam War.
    Even into the 1980’s, the conservative wing of the Republican Party pushed for a semi-isolationist foreign policy (much like Ron Paul). Today, there is almost no such voice in the Republican Party.
    Furthermore, Manifest Destiny was not well received when it was first described in 1845. A great many objected that America was ‘destined’ to be a model to world (“shinning city on a hill”) NOT to be a conqueror. Also note that once the US had expanded to the Pacific, it didn’t go on to attack Mexico and/or Canada. If the US was naturally so Borg-like (any threat/opposition being existential), then why didn’t it proceed to conquer the whole of the continent?
    Americans are generally poor at history and foreign affairs. The neocons would like to take advantage of this weakness to airbrush much of American history; making it easier for Americans to accept their program. IMO the way out of the Borg morass involves seeing through neocon deceptions. An important part of that is understanding who we are and who we aren’t / what’s important to us and what is not / etc.

  121. Jackrabbit says:

    I described the Borg in an earlier comment (my first, waaay up above) as a Cult and protection racket.
    I don’t see neocons and the Borg as the same thing. neoconservatism is an ideology that Zionists found useful to convince US elites to push for an activist foreign policy but it has branched out from that beginning.
    See my first comment above for more.

  122. Jackrabbit says:

    IMO it’s difficult for most to understand the “Borg” without some description of how it began and how it grew to have such influence.

  123. To clarify my definition: SITUATION ETHICS is not SECULAR HUMANISM! Although not Catholic in FAITH as a Christian I have come to learn, understand, and admire the NATURAL LAW doctrines of the Catholic Church and for that reason almost alone regret the demise of Associate Justice Scalia although whether his analysis of ORIGINALISM or TEXTUALISM is correct remains IMO highly doubtful as evidenced by his opinion in HELLER!
    Could a MORMON be appointed to SCOTUS?

  124. Wiki Extract:
    The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, super-naturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.
    Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.
    The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world union of more than one hundred Humanist, rationalist, irreligious, atheistic, Bright, secular, Ethical Culture, and free-thought organizations in more than 40 countries. The “Happy Human” is the official symbol of the IHEU as well as being regarded as a universally recognized symbol for those who call themselves Humanists. Secular humanist organizations are found in all parts of the world. Those who call themselves humanists are estimated to number between four and five million people worldwide.

  125. YT says:

    Ah Heavens!, where is the Heracles who shall wrestle with all the borg hydra’s heads?

  126. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You are asking what is the root of Human Action and not specifically Borgistas?
    I do not think in those roots they differ from all previous generations of human beings or those living today. It is their power and their world outlook that makes them what they are today.
    Let us not forget that they have been flirting with World War III numerous times over the last 15 – 16 years.
    For men and women who occupy such lofty heights of unprecedented power, that is just madness.
    Min you, a mad man can sound rational, at times too.

  127. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Israel is not a Western Diocletian state – no matter how much her population and leaders may wish it to be. It was, at one time, an Eastern European country – like Romania – but with the influx of Arabs and later Russians I imagine that is pretty much diluted by now.

  128. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Men give rise to ideas and then those ideas gain control of their minds.
    Let us take the idea of “L’aissez faire” and Free Market etc.
    One can well imagine a very rich man using his assets to get sufficient amount of loans to go ahead and gain control of a number of banks.
    He then proceeds to call in all the mortgages and loans outstanding, evicting individuals and families out of their dwellings. Next he buys shops, department stores, hotels, inns (which do not exist in US) and proceeds to close them. Likewise for hospitals, clinics, pharmacies etc.
    Very quickly, a person with such resources, can make 80% of a city homeless and 90% of its population unemployed. And he cannot be held legally accountable for anything that he has done; he is just using his money the way he wants – you know, Freedom, Sanctity of Contracts etc.
    One could well imagine a person buying entire farmlands of the American Mid-West and refuse to plant food. And let the population starve, after all, he would then only be exercising his rights to private property.
    Aliens do not need to invade the Earth with battleships to take possession of her, they only need to send a small group of alien accountants with Earth-sanctioned capital to buy up entire cities and drive their populations from their jobs.

  129. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You wrote:
    “And part of the history in Britain, is that if one wants to look more for models of prudent, practical, and humane ‘business sense’, many of them are Jewish.”
    This has been generally true outside of Britain too. However, nowadays, love for the State of Israel trumps all other considerations.
    In a way, State of Israel has become more important than Judaism…

  130. LJ says:

    We should not forget Prof. Carroll Quigley’s study of what he called the Anglo-American Establishment. One of his more well known quotes:
    “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

  131. sillybill says:

    I guess I misunderstood the “Submit suggestions” part of the original post.

  132. 505thPIR says:

    @ Cynic…Too simplistic by my reckoning and a pretty damn loaded finger point…lots of organized groups have a hand here. Unorganized “Jewry” has had a tragic history. Do explain at length.

  133. Castellio says:

    Yes, I agree with your point.
    However, I do worry that the purpose of an over-generalized definition can be to diffuse the critical target needing change so that nothing need be done. Not in all cases, I understand, but in many.
    It is interesting, too, to think of which groups or individuals we feel are most successful in direct struggle against the Borg. Certainly I would mention Jewish Voices for Peace and the BDS movement, as well as, on the information front, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, which is why they are either being constantly attacked or living in some form of exile. I think this site is an effective strategic part of the struggle, as was, for an honourable stretch of time, “Going to Tehran”. Cass Sunstein is a deeply ensconced member of the Borg, his most successful critic, in the public field, has been David Ray Griffin.
    As to who is successful against the trans-Atlantic financial Borg, well… I don’t know. Varoufakis tried, but has been tossed to the side even within his “own” party.
    Can the logistics of the struggle help with our definition?

  134. Croesus says:

    re: “As I wrote above, the US didn’t take up neoconservativism right after WWII. AND, neoconservativism didn’t gain popularity until after the Vietnam War.”
    Did you ever notice how real estate ads focus on Granite countertops and stainless appliances, but never, ever mention the foundation walls?
    The foundation of the neoconservative movement began to be laid in 1949 in the Waldorf Astoria conference; Irving Kristol was in attendance; the conference urged for a US relationship with Josef Stalin’s communist regime. Kristol was, of course, one of the fathers of neoconservatives, having been among those Trotskyites who spent their time in the cafeteria airing their grievances with their free education in New York City colleges — they thought they should have been admitted to Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc.
    Also by the early 1950s the zionist presence in the USA had achieved critical mass. Dick Cheney’s favorite professor at Yale was H Bradford Westerfield, whose 1955 text, Foreign Policy and Party Politics, included a chapter on the influence of zionism in US domestic political activity as it influence foreign policy. Westerfield pointed out that these “well-funded and zealous” zionists understood that winner-take-all elections meant that Jewish voters in a few key states, such as New York, Ohio, Florida, could swing a nationwide election. Westerfield went on to note that another key advantage that the zionists held was that “no other entity had the interest or the clout” to counterbalance their influence.
    Grant Smith’s extensive research into the efforts of zionist organizations, which morphed into AIPAC, to evade registration under FORA includes a 1963 letter from the young representative from Chicago, Donald Rumsfeld, to U S Attorney General Robert Kennedy questioning the rationale for the request that the Zionist Council of America register as a foreign agent.
    I suppose I’m operating under the assumption that zionism is an integral element of neoconservatism. I think that’s a valid assumption. But zionism is not a strictly Jewish affair. I would place the nexus of Christians-as-zionists and Jews-as-zionists in a particular and peculiar rendering of Hebrew scripture; my own shorthand for that interpretation is Abrahamism ( although I am beginning to think that “Mosesism” might be more appropriate), and central to that belief system are the notions of Choseness, which is the equivalent of “exceptionalism,” as well as the “right to rule,” or imperium, in which imperium includes the right to enforce one’s will even to the point of delivering death.
    All of these notions — of Choseness (see for example Rabbi Ken Spiro of, explain that “Jews are the moral leaders of the world” ), and of the imperial right to kill other people in order to enforce one’s own right-to-rule status — (see for example Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazoney’s FebB. 17, 2016 essay, Mordecai’s Challenge: An Essay on War, Leadership, and Purim , (h/t Larry Kart ) are rooted in Hebrew mythos and were primary motives for US entry into WWII against Germany, even at a time when most Jews and especially German Jews resisted a commitment to zionism, as explained in no uncertain terms by Edwin Black in “The Transfer Agreement.”
    In sum, Jackrabbit, zionism, the precursor, or foundation, of neoconservatism, which is essential to a definition of The Borg, has been a work-in-progress in the USA since at least the time of US entry into World War I; its structural elements became visible above grade with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933; became a permanent feature on the US landscape during and immediately after the war, and was recognized as a major influence on US domestic and foreign policy by Dick Cheney’s favorite professor, Bradford Westerfield, by the early 1950s.

  135. Ingolf says:

    “You are asking what is the root of Human Action and not specifically Borgistas?”
    No, I wasn’t, Babak.
    Not quite sure how but we seem to have ended up talking past each other. In any case, I’m happy to just let it go while wholly endorsing your comment that this sort of behaviour “is just madness”.

  136. Ingolf says:

    Apologies for not having taken your earlier comment into account.
    We’ll just have to agree to differ, I think, since your take on the Borg (a term I still feel a little uncomfortable using!) is of a much more consciously activist and self-aware grouping than mine.

  137. YT says:

    ‘Tis sad times.
    How crooks & scoundrels (the likes of soros) become ‘heroic.’
    P’raps such deviations in Moral standards started with emulating “robber barons” the likes of carnegie , goldman, sachs, etc.
    It seems that in the occident west, as long as one’s pockets are filled, it matters little how one acquired his wealth in the first place.
    A trend that the young in the east follow & emulate closely as well…
    Money rules over all other considerations.
    “While wealth is covetable for a gentleman as well, he takes it in its natural course.”
    Anything but (these days)…

  138. Jackrabbit says:

    A few have said “Cult” (including me). A cult lies somewhere between cabal and mindless drones.
    A cult is more ideological than a mafia.
    The Borg cult doesn’t beg or sell handicrafts. It runs a lucrative protection scheme.

  139. Jackrabbit says:

    Thank you for reviewing the history.
    I agree that Zionism grew and laid the groundwork for promoting neoconservativism. And the Waldorf Astoria conference was a key point.
    But Leo Strauss, a German, is credited with developing the first neoconservative theories in the 1930’s just before he came to the US in 1937.
    The thrust of my argument is that neoconservatism (what I term Zionism’s American syllogism – because it grew out of Zionist proponents, NOT an American organic movement) is not drawn from the American tradition.
    Please see my initial comment waaay above the thread.

  140. Larry Kart says:

    Many thanks for posting that link. I remember William Appleman Williams book and will have to read this piece more than once to take it all in.

  141. rjj says:

    Did you ever see “The Servant” ?? I think it is a parable of how that is accomplished.

  142. rjj says:

    correction: of how that happens.

  143. Something about this post and comments is of great interest!
    I have been looking at beliefs that would almost automatically exclude one from being defined as a Card Carrying Borg member [at least in the U.S.A.].
    I believe deep deep knowledge by training, education, experience in civil military interface policies and issues and history in the U.S.A. is the foremost reason for exclusion. P.L.’s wonderful novels among many many other things about him prove he is NOT a member to me.
    And exposing my ADD mind to all the next is Federalism. I recently learned that Sam Clovis became a national co-chair for Donald Trump last August. And disclosure in my first chance as a voter for the Presidency in 2016, the Virginia Primary, I voted for Senator Sanders who lost to HRC. He is not a Fabian Socialist IMO but not a Borg Member either.
    Back to Sam Clovis! In October 2006 he published IMO the best article on federalism and HS since 9/11/01! And IMO still the best. Linked here:
    I believe that almost the entirety of the Borg does not understand FEDERALISM and it almost never enters their thinking despite its Constitutional basis in the U.S.A.
    I would question Borg members knowledge of the U.S. Constitution since like the deceased Sandy Berger who once announced in a national security environment the “whatever a President chooses to do it is Legal”! Certainly a member IMO of the Borg.
    But I would argue on the basis of both of my tests neither Trump nor Clovis is a member of the Borg.
    IMO HRC is a full fledged member of the Borg. Perhaps as always wrong.

  144. Jackrabbit says:

    This article, published in 2009 by Andrew Bacevich, describes Williams work which saw a failure of diplomacy and historical over-reliance on military. Williams described historical antecedents of imperialism prior to neoconservativism.
    This article, from the same author in 2012: refines this view:
    “In the absence of actually existing peace, a nation’s reigning definition of peace shapes its proclivity to use force. A nation committed to peace-as-harmony will tend to employ force as a last resort. The United States once subscribed to this view. Or beyond the confines of the Western Hemisphere, it at least pretended to do so.
    A nation seeking peace-as-dominion will use force more freely. This has long been an Israeli predilection. Since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, however, it has become America’s as well. As a consequence, U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This “Israelification” of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it’s not likely to be good for the United States.”
    See more in the article.

  145. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Surely, you would not be expecting Don Corleone to be studying the “Federalist Papers” every night before going to sleep?

  146. Thomas says:

    “How crooks & scoundrels (the likes of soros) become ‘heroic.'”
    Same old way as always, philanthropic gifts to influence people into believing you really are a Good Guy! And a generation with souls to willing to fall for it.

  147. Castellio says:

    Your point here is good.
    Jackrabbit does predicate a more consciously activist and self-aware grouping. As do I.
    In my experience, the Borg (for lack of better words at this point) is neither ignorant nor passive, but actively functions with identifiable interests and accomplishments. A recent, small, activist and conscious accomplishment would be the side-lining of Melissa Harris-Perry during the election cycle, and the hiring of a former Ted Cruz aide.

  148. FkDahl says:

    I am intrigued by Karl Rove’s statement “fact’s don’t matter”, and how the Borgist create a new reality there for us lesser beings to study. One unfortunate fact in the US since 9/11 is the lack of proper feedback mechanism for being wrong! At worst you are moved sideways in the government-think tank-media nexus. We are all fruit of our upbringing and schooling and in this attached list you will find many key Borgist schools, where they like to recruit from. Grades are just for the plebes? Once you’re in the club you’re in.

  149. Ingolf says:

    Thanks, but we may be talking about slightly different versions of “consciously activist and self-aware”.
    It’s only natural that those who share a certain view of the world, whether as true believers or opportunists, will tend to take actions that they see as benefiting their side. Certainly, I didn’t mean to suggest passivity or ignorance on the part of Borg members.
    What I meant is that these “members” are linked by a set of shared attitudes and beliefs rather than any sense of being part of this larger grouping that we’re calling the Borg. In my view, that term (or whatever alternative might be chosen) is one we’re applying to these like-minded individuals and sub groupings, not one that they would even consider using themselves.

  150. Perhaps Madison’s notes of the Convention written long after the Constitution adopted. And Rutledge’s note given to Madison.

  151. optimax says:

    The Borg is the scriptwriter of the New World Order. It writes the plot and speech for the cultural, economic and political order of compliant nations and destroys the leadership of non-compliant counties.
    The Borg first infiltrates higher education, the colleges and universities, eventually dominating curriculum through large endowments and the hiring of professors and administrators. It projects its influence downward and is even expanding into preschool. George Bernard Shaw, a NWO man himself, considered centralized education as a direct pipeline for propaganda from the government directly into the minds of young students.
    Entertainment and news organizations are bought and controlled by Borg enthusiasts. Anything that counters traditional western culture is promoted because, after assimilating western tradition, the Borg needs to replace it with a more highly “evolved” consciousness, one it can define and control.
    The economic takeover by the Borg has been the most studied and written about by others more qualified than I. The Borg’s success is most evident here in that they own most of the world’s wealth. Any attempt by a nation to counter the trend is futile and leads to the countries economic destruction. Chaos is better than successful resistance.
    The representative form of government is easy for the Borg to control. All it has to do is buy or bribe the politicians, dominate the political parties and write the media propaganda that informs the voter. Since most of America’s leaders are brainwashed at the same elite institutions the financial and social benefits accrued by its graduates are built into the system. Politicians become paid actors on the Borg stage.
    I had a very strange experience while listening to the radio in the car today–Glenn Beck and crew kept mentioning the Borg. They didn’t give you credit, Col.

  152. turcopolier says:

    “They didn’t give you credit, Col.” Sob! pl

  153. Croesus says:

    Thank you for mentioning Mary Settegast. I’ve found materials that introduce her theories; namely, this video: it’s not that long, but her arguments are meticulous and rich. Settegast expands upon ideas that Karen Armstrong has included in her writing on The Axial Age.

  154. Castellio says:

    I would argue that there are definitely many people (members of the Borg, so to speak) who have a sense of “we” and a clear sense of belonging within their like-minded groups. There are also many who share social assumptions but don’t have that developed self-identification, but who are not the primary leaders.
    There is, again in my experience, a great deal of conscious alliance-making and forethought in the actions of the Neocons and allied groups, and a definite sense of identity linked to action items and well considered agendas. Their success has been founded upon it.

  155. optimax says:

    I know, life just ain’t fair.

  156. turcopolier says:

    I coulda been a contender. pl

  157. Farooq says:

    I haven’t finished this video yet but i am seeing issues related to anachronism how the argument ties Zarathustra to IVC and the date of circa 6500 BC as well as the idea of castle rustling. I would recommend the following book with a very rigorous take on all these aspects in the context of horse domestication. There is a strong argument that cattle rustling is tied to horse domestication.
    Here are couple of lectures by Dr David Anthony incase you decide not to read the book:

  158. optimax says:

    “Glenn or Glenda” stole your thunder.

  159. turcopolier says:

    Let me know if you hear others saying it. pl

  160. Castellio says:

    I appreciate your contribution very much, Croesus. Many thanks.
    There is no reason to argue against your fact that neo-conservatism found parallels and comfortable places in American society in which to thrive and prosper. However, I would argue that the roots of the movement are actually in Eastern Europe with the development of what led to both Zionism and, in particular, revisionist Zionism. I find your history accurate, but more of a later subset of that movement.
    The central issue of that time and place, under the failing governments of both Austira-Hungary and Tsarist Russia, was the relationship between the state and people, and whether a state could represent more than one people, and how an “oppressed people” (ie, minority peoples) could create a state of their own. The minority peoples were many: Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, Georgians, Tatars, the list goes on and is actually quite long. Given that the state was THE ticket to modernization, both in terms of democracy and economic organization (state education, taxation and state investment, standing armies, etc) – the creation of the nation state was seen as the most important and necessary action of any thriving ethnicity if it was to survive and prosper. Many believed that the ethnic state, created through violence and validated by the appropriately exceptional virtues of its ethnic base, was the only way to go. Which leads us directly to Jabotinsky. (For the record, more streets in Israel are named after Jabotinsky than any other national figure.)
    Strauss, not a strong thinker but an historically interesting one, certainly brought that interpretation of history to American academia, going out of his way to argue that while his was the correct reading of history, his ethnically based interpretation must remain hidden and should be shared only among those capable of understanding. I would agree with Jackrabbit that this wasn’t a mainstream tradition within American history. The neoconservatives love to argue that it is, for the simple reason that ethnic superiority is, in their world view, at the root of all human progress.

  161. optimax says:

    Will keep the Marconni on.

  162. Erik von Reis says:

    What about the Dulles brothers? Were they abnormal Borgists?

  163. YT says:
    Not done reading this (very long! article) but oughta interest you.

  164. YT says:

    Aye, indeed.
    A certain ‘celebrity’ has recently incurred the wrath of Ginks as well with his ‘philanthropy.’

  165. LeaNder says:

    “it left me with horrified, nauseous feelings…”
    That may have to do with the term of “New World Order” or maybe since the conspiracy theorist possess something like a intuitive feeling that the human mind never mind intentions (good or evil) in its search for Utopia may create a Dystopia in the real world out there:
    I do love H. G. Wells admittedly, and I guess I am vaguely a cosmopolitan. At least to the extend I wish other people around the world the same chance to live their life as I am able to live it wherever I am. … But I am also aware that this feeling may not be as easy to achieve in the real world out there as I wish. Never mind the quality of intentions between good and evil.
    International law no doubt is one of the basic set of rules we have that crosses our respective national borders. And we no doubt need this set of rules. … And the rest is power? Both military and economical?
    A no doubt rather superficial look at Slaughter concerns the limits of our human imagination:
    Or from a purely theoretical position, if the Iran war was illegal according to “international law” what about Libya and Syria? I am sure the academics will discuss this in the decades to come.

  166. Ingolf says:

    I think all of that’s so, Castellio, and very much in line with PL’s “network of networks”.

  167. LeaNder says:

    Interesting comment:
    a review of two recent books on the Dulles brothers:

  168. When asked to name his FP advisers in last night’s debate [3/4/2016] Trump named several!

  169. turcopolier says:

    Unfortunately Keane is an arch-priest of the Borg and Haas is a running-dog of the same. Jack Jacobs would be a good adviser although I do not think he understands Syria. I listened to Jim Webb on MJ this AM. Trump should ask him to run with him. To hell with the party thing! pl

  170. IMO Webb would be great VP for almost anyone of either party! He has good judgment and experience!

  171. different clue says:

    As more people become concerned about the Borg problem, there may eventually become enough people concerned and ready to lift a steady and consistent finger in their mundane daily lives that different groups of people may well focus on different aspects based on what these different groups of people feel is the most important and dangerous of the Borg’s organs of manipulation and coercion. Perhaps all us different grouploads of “opposers” should not spend too much time and energy trying to convince all the other grouploads that one single line or point of attack is the most important one which everybody should focus on. Perhaps each action-group should focus on what they feel most concerned about and best know how to counter. And the different groups can communicate from time to time to compare notes about what is working and what isn’t, and can lend eachother strength and support to pursue some line of attack together which seems to be visibly working.

  172. different clue says:

    William R. Cumming,
    I hope Senator Webb will rethink his way to acceptance or even support of the “no nukes development” deal with Iran. Since he is not bribe-able or intimidatable, I wonder what his opposition is based on. I wonder if he feels we still have unfinished bussiness with Iran, in that no personally-involved perpetrators or instigators there were ever punished for the Embassy Takeover?

  173. Felipemck says:

    From the Taoist perspective which distills everything down to its essential energetic quality, it is simply the insatiable lust for power, a function of the ego. The particulars of time and culture are sideshow manifestations of this underlying animal/human drive. The spiritual traditions try to expand this limited maladaptive ego view into progressively more inclusive perspectives. Thus, e.g. What you do to others you do to yourself.

  174. Felipemck says:

    From the Taoist perspective which distills everything down to its essential energetic quality, it is simply the insatiable lust for power, a function of the ego. The particulars of time and culture are sideshow manifestations of this underlying animal/human drive. The spiritual traditions try to expand this limited maladaptive ego view into progressively more inclusive perspectives. Thus, e.g. What you do to others you do to yourself.

  175. Castellio says:

    I agree with that.

  176. Mark Gaughan says:

    The Borg:
    Monster by Steppenwolf
    Once the religious, the hunted and weary
    Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
    Came to this country to build a new vision
    Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
    Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
    Later some got slaves to gather riches
    But still from near and far to seek America
    They came by thousands to court the wild
    But she just patiently smiled and bore a child
    To be their spirit and guiding light
    And once the ties with the crown had been broken
    Westward in saddle and wagon it went
    And ’til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
    Many the lives which had come to an end
    While we bullied, stole and bought our homeland
    We began the slaughter of the red man
    But still from near and far to seek America
    They came by thousands to court the wild
    But she just patiently smiled and bore a child
    To be their spirit and guiding light
    The blue and gray they stomped it
    They kicked it just like a dog
    And when the war was over
    They stuffed it just like a hog
    And though the past has it’s share of injustice
    Kind was the spirit in many a way
    But it’s protectors and friends have been sleeping
    Now it’s a monster and will not obey
    The spirit was freedom and justice
    And it’s keepers seem friendly and kind
    It’s leaders were supposed to serve the country
    But now they won’t pay it no mind
    ‘Cause the people got fat and grew lazy
    Now their vote is like a meaningless joke
    You know they talk about law, about order
    But it’s all just an echo of what they’ve been told
    ‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose
    It’s got our heads into a noose
    And it just sits there watchin’
    Our cities have turned into jungles
    And corruption is stranglin’ the land
    The police force is watching the people
    And the people just can’t understand
    We don’t know how to mind our own business
    ‘Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
    Now we are fighting a war over there
    No matter who’s the winner, we can’t pay the cost
    ‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose
    It’s got our heads into the noose
    And it just sits there watching
    America where are you now?
    Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?
    Don’t you know we need you now
    We can’t fight alone against the monster
    (The album was released in November, 1969.)

  177. Is there any consensus on which of the Magnificent Six candidates remaining have been absorbed by the Borg?

  178. Fred says:

    All but Trump.

  179. Jackrabbit says:

    I would agree with Jackrabbit that this wasn’t a mainstream tradition within American history. The neoconservatives love to argue that it is…
    Yes! I would add that it is all too easy to conflate the USA’s unique/special history and belief in God’s blessing (as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings doctrine) with neocon exceptionalist superiority and drive for NWO hegemony.
    … for the simple reason that ethnic superiority is, in their world view, at the root of all human progress.
    Well, ‘ethnic superiority’ may be true to some extent, but I thing it is done primarily to weaken American resistance to the neocon/Borg agenda.

  180. Castellio says:

    “Primarily” is a strong word. Are you right? Perhaps you are.
    I do know that a lot of money and time goes into finding the ‘right’ approaches to the general public on a range of neo-con issues, and that ‘confusion’ and ‘misinformation’ around actual events/motives is the result being actively sought.

  181. Croesus says:

    Thank you Farooq.
    One book that I read years ago correlated the development of cattle rustling with the use of soma — psychotropic drugs.
    Dr. Anthony’s thesis suggests a more sober analysis.

Comments are closed.