Conspiracy culture as radical disempowerment

[nashvillebrook]

Depends on what "conspiracies" we would like to refer to. A conspiracy can be a real thing, and they are, and they are crimes. When it comes to asking, "Is my government capable of killing its own people, to sway public opinion or further an agenda?" that is the rabbit hole that always brings up anyone's defense mechanism of a perfect picture being shattered.

It is a control mechanism and a defense mechanism of the mind. People are too afraid to believe that a government, their own government, is capable of crime. It is safer to believe in a picture that someone's environment is in their control and that it is safe. When people that are so entrenched in these mechanisms realize that there really are out of control and corrupt powers at the highest level, they break down emotionally as the loss of what they were told becomes untrue.

JFK, RFK, MLK, Oklahoma, MKULTRA, 9/11, Anthrax, 7/7. The patterns are there. Most governments and their agencies are already in a pre-fascist state.

*We have CIA, that are above the law and already operate on U.S. soil, which is against their original mandate, with agents in state governments and in the media and infiltrating peace organizations.
*CIA colluding with MI6, ISI, and Mossad.
*We have elements of the FBI being interlinked with terrorism directly and indirectly.
*Terrorists organizations created by these agencies are used to disrupt and create upheaval in other countries. A War On Terror that involves Supporting Terrorism? What a terrible and complicit double standard with an obvious agenda.
*Politicians are bought by banksters and corporations.
*War is waged for profit and acquiring the resources of nations.

And most of all, this has happened throughout history. It is not new.

So I ask, how are those things not "conspiracies" ? Conspiracies that often lead to wars or abuse of law or crimes against humanity.

"Since the corporate mainstream media and the foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media have refused to report the facts about 9/11, roughly 100 million Americans consider the media moguls pathological liars. Even among the almost 200 million Americans who are not up-front 9/11 skeptics, the vague sense that something is wrong, and that the media and the politicians are lying, is widespread. A recent Pew Research poll, for example, showed that Americans' trust in government has fallen to an all-time low: Fewer than one-third of Americans trust the government, while more than two-thirds do not."

Conspiracies absolutely exist...it's the main method of money-making in our current economic climate. But they aren't mystical -- they don't require symbolic deconstruction and decades of heuristic cogitation. They are crimes that require prosecution. I think it's worth considering that the perceived complexity of these crimes/events might be strategic.

Here's a question that I think is begged in this piece -- are we we doing ourselves a solid when we say "the government" is responsible for murdering JKF for instance. Does that build power? Or does that make us feel less able to respond? What if, instead of "government" the target were specifically "the CIA." Or, a rogue team within the CIA associated with XYZ politician/s. Now you've got a target. You've also got allies in other people within government who have power to do something about it. You've also narrowed the focus for the media which can then turn their lens on what's wrong within this particular sector of a specific intelligence agency. This is much more strategic than the target being "the government."

Whose interest does it serve to muddy the waters and expand the focus from a concrete target to an amorphous "government." Or "the system," generally.

As good researchers we're taught to cast a wide net, and use language that is inclusive -- "the system" and "the government" and "capitalism" help researchers be somewhat correct about a problem. Yes, the problem lies within government, capitalism and the system generally -- but that can't be acted upon. It's the opposite of what you do when you want to build power to change something: name and shame, apply pressure, create a critical mass of opposition.

[Simulist]

Here's a question that I think is begged in this piece -- are we we doing ourselves a solid when we say "the government" is responsible for murdering JKF for instance. Does that build power? Or does that make us feel less able to respond? What if, instead of "government" the target were specifically "the CIA." Or, a rogue team within the CIA associated with XYZ politician/s. Now you've got a target. You've also got allies in other people within government who have power to do something about it. You've also narrowed the focus for the media which can then turn their lens on what's wrong within this particular sector of a specific intelligence agency. This is much more strategic than the target being "the government."

Right on.

Whose interest does it serve to muddy the waters and expand the focus from a concrete target to an amorphous "government." Or "the system," generally.

Thank you. I've again learned something from you this morning.

[nashvillebrook]

:wave:

nashvillebrook

The problem isn't that conspiracies don't exist. The problem is that they do indeed exist, but if we allow ourselves to wax mystical about them, it makes it impossible to change things. Whereas, when you recognize that money and greed are always conspiring against us, there's something you can do about it. You can name and shame the powers in play. You can endeavor to take their power away legally, politically or culturally. You can at least avoid participating in commerce that empowers them.

"You can at least avoid participating in commerce that empowers them."


They can't win...they can't beat you if you're not playing their game...

I'll be dreaming, dreaming...
Dreaming...




Oh they tell me
There's still time to save my soul
They tell me
Renounce all
Renounce all those material things you gained by
Exploiting other human beings


when you play their game you are exploiting other human beings...

It's enriching to rebel on the personal level. It gives life meaning. Knowing where your food comes from and who writes the bills that govern...or mis-govern our society...is meaningful.

The Alex Joneses and Glenn Becks protect the status quo by making everything a shadow dance -- like in Plato's Analogy of the Cave -- people fettered in darkness naturally prefer the shadows to the light. If they're shown the light (in the form of real data and true facts) they either don't recognize it or rebel against it. "Climate change is a myth!" "They're coming for our guns!" Look over there! Another shadow to chase...this time it's encoded in the architecture of the New York Public Library...rather than the books contained within.

Imagine if all the conservatives plugged into Glenn Beck's shadow dance, who are CERTAIN that "they're coming for our guns," instead believed the *true fact* that they already came for your pension. They already stole your children's wages, and like the hogs...they're never going to be satisfied.

There's definitely a "they" there. There's definitely a theft and we're definitely victims of that theft. But these are not shadows, and so they're more difficult for cave dwellers to perceive.

[nashvillebrook]

So...just to thrown down my cards...the biggest problem in this article for me is lumping the 1% vs 99% in the useless conspiracy dustbin. As shown in this thread...
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36459

...the 1% is completely identifiable and namable. They're not shadows.

And, lumping them into an overarching mythological conspiracy model is internally inconsistent with the author's premise...which is that transactional conspiracies are the ones we can do something about. The Kochs are not the Rockefellers. They're acting in real time, managing transactions in a conspiratorial manner than have clear impact on our perception and our power.

http://www.nationofchange.org/media-manipulators-david-koch-resigns-wnet-trustee-amid-new-yorker-article-1369405651

Amid concerns that Koch Industries could buy several major U.S. newspapers from Tribune Company, industrial billionaire David Koch was forced to step down as trustee of WNET, New York City’s largest public TV station, after the New Yorker revealed how WNET gave Koch inappropriate influence over its programming. Mr. Koch was floating a seven-figure donation over WNET’s leadership as the station aired a movie that portrayed him as a particularly greedy Manhattan resident.

Here's a clear transactional conspiracy that was thwarted...somewhat...by naming and shaming. Koch still got his way in the beginning, but Jane Mayer pulled the curtain back and when we saw what was really going on, he had to move from his position of power...at least as it impacts WNET.

[Simulist]

Whose interest does it serve to muddy the waters and expand the focus from a concrete target to an amorphous "government." Or "the system," generally.

Thank you. I've again learned something from you this morning.

Having said that, and upon further reflection, I also do think there is some value in pointing out that the entirety of the system does sometimes not only allow the parts within it to misbehave, but in fact can also be a factor in the overall inertia which impels the misbehavior. Because the whole is in fact greater than the sum of its parts.

I agree though that consistently pointing to "the system" (and absolutely yes: "the government") without reference to the individual parts in the system (parts which provably do the things we're setting about to criticize) is, undeniably, reification and a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

[Canadian_watcher]

The Alex Joneses and Glenn Becks protect the status quo by making everything a shadow dance -- like in Plato's Analogy of the Cave -- people fettered in darkness naturally prefer the shadows to the light. If they're shown the light (in the form of real data and true facts) they either don't recognize it or rebel against it. "Climate change is a myth!" "They're coming for our guns!" Look over there! Another shadow to chase...this time it's encoded in the architecture of the New York Public Library...rather than the books contained within.

Imagine if all the conservatives plugged into Glenn Beck's shadow dance, who are CERTAIN that "they're coming for our guns," instead believed the *true fact* that they already came for your pension. They already stole your children's wages, and like the hogs...they're never going to be satisfied.

There's definitely a "they" there. There's definitely a theft and we're definitely victims of that theft. But these are not shadows, and so they're more difficult for cave dwellers to perceive.

it's been great reading your posts.

I particularly agree with what you've written above - so much time wasted on the kind of 'abstract' signatures that there might be a conspiracy, rather than on laws that have clearly been broken (via conspiracy, oftentimes).

I think I took the original piece as being more mocking than analytical - your commentary, however, is right on IMO.

Wall Street is another example - probably 100 or more clear cut cases of broken laws but no prosecutions. People ought to make more of that and less of the 'they are coming for our guns!' thing, for sure.

Perhaps this has some roots in the fact that people have tried and failed to put pressure on organizations, political leaders, corporations, etc via the accepted channels for so long that they are flung into such confusion and helplessness that we kind of have a sort of upside down mythology being built?

[KeenInsight]

Conspiracies absolutely exist...it's the main method of money-making in our current economic climate. But they aren't mystical -- they don't require symbolic deconstruction and decades of heuristic cogitation. They are crimes that require prosecution. I think it's worth considering that the perceived complexity of these crimes/events might be strategic.

Here's a question that I think is begged in this piece -- are we we doing ourselves a solid when we say "the government" is responsible for murdering JKF for instance. Does that build power? Or does that make us feel less able to respond? What if, instead of "government" the target were specifically "the CIA." Or, a rogue team within the CIA associated with XYZ politician/s. Now you've got a target. You've also got allies in other people within government who have power to do something about it. You've also narrowed the focus for the media which can then turn their lens on what's wrong within this particular sector of a specific intelligence agency. This is much more strategic than the target being "the government."

Whose interest does it serve to muddy the waters and expand the focus from a concrete target to an amorphous "government." Or "the system," generally.

As good researchers we're taught to cast a wide net, and use language that is inclusive -- "the system" and "the government" and "capitalism" help researchers be somewhat correct about a problem. Yes, the problem lies within government, capitalism and the system generally -- but that can't be acted upon. It's the opposite of what you do when you want to build power to change something: name and shame, apply pressure, create a critical mass of opposition.

If the JFK assassination was truly acted upon, those fascists that took over in the bowels of government and agencies would have been brought to justice. They weren't. Individuals that were directly involved got away with it, and so did those indirectly. They were and are above the law where they believe their heinous crimes are for the good of their dark psychopathy. And their crimes pass onto to each successive generation, for an out of control construct that was put in place. This isn't even subject to a mere American "corruption" phenomenon, all the major powers, central banks. Their interests are war and belittling and oppressing "the people." They have infiltrated governments and they have them by the balls. Can good people over come this? Yes, but it would take much time and disrupting of propaganda that is so prevalent, that is in no way mystical, but a reality.

In the year 2038, I would have been able to walk into the National Archives and see the JFK Files at the age of 52 from a crime that happened before I was even born. But, no, we are not allowed to see those things beyond even 2038, because they see us a rebellious children that know if the truth is found out, their whole racket comes crumbling down. So how can politicians in good conscious, that obviously have an idea or inkling of what those files contain if they brazenly request the release of said files to be pushed back, have the gawl not to tell the public what they may or may not have found out? You know what I call that? Obstruction of Justice and Abetting and Aiding Criminals.

The quote from the JFK movie became damningly true:

"All these documents are yours. The people's property, you pay for it! But because the government considers you children who might be too disturbed or distressed to face this reality, or because you might possibly lynch those involved, you cannot see these documents for another seventy-five years. I'm in my early forties, so I'll have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, but I'm already telling my eight-year-old son to keep himself physically fit, so that one glorious September morning, in the year 2038, he can walk into the National Archives, and find out what the CIA and the FBI knew! They might even push it back then, hell it may become a generational affair, with questions passed down from father to son, mother to daughter, but someday, somewhere, somebody will find out the damn truth."

“The history of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors.” ― Meridel Le Sueur

[JackRiddler]

Starts nicely enough. But after that first jump... Flaunts gaping ignorance about 9/11, which of course is not actually treated. Succumbs to the usual anti-conspiracist tropes and general strawmanning with no distinction made or interest in a factual approach to different ideas. The "1%" is conspiracy theory?! There are no ruling classes who can express themselves over long historical periods even against ultimate trend? Things aren't done for anyone in particular? Ha. Where is there room for class war in all this? What about caste, racism, ethnicity, cultural factors? Where is there room for the interests of the powerful finding expression? Is neoliberalism, the actively plotted class war of the last 35+ years, also a conspiracy theory? It's true that capitalism runs into perpetual crises due to failure to accumulate, and that these force almost all actors to conform to serving accumulation ueber alles. It's true in the abstract. That doesn't mean capitalism will always find the way to accumulate most efficiently, or that existing power centers simply yield to the logic of maximum accumulation. That always involves a fight. Inefficient actors in capitalist terms use their existing weight to maintain their own interests regardless of what ideal capital accumulation would "want." Thus Microsoft still exists. Military-industrial-intel-deepstate complexes construct the threats they need to get a fat slice of total wealth that in pure capitalist terms would be better devoted elsewhere. Sometimes, furthermore, politics yields to the need of maintaining society and social peace on some minimum basis, so you have New Deals and welfare states with the support of some of the rich, while class war is fought by the bulk of the ownership class to overturn these. There really are differences in what different elites plan and want, and who comes out supreme among them matters. Yes, sorry, take the Rockefellers (modern day) over the Kochs and then fight for more. Some institutions hold a special power to fuck all other capital concentrations if they need to (banks, in particular). Sometimes capitalist politics yields to nationalism where these do genuinely conflict. US apartheid was ultimately worn down by the needs of capital, but most of the owners thereof, along with most of the population, remained devoted to racist ideology and it took a long struggle of an organized movement without which the needs of capital would not alone have turned the tide. (Who the hell is preaching powerlessness, given that history?) And racism continues, of course. Ideology matters, what different actors think and want matters, power matters, movements matter, agency exists, outcomes are not entirely predetermined by abstract workings and imperatives of capital.

So yeah, in short, it's fatally flawed and mechanistic thinking as one-dimensional as that which it purports to refute.

[Canadian_watcher]

That was righteous, Jack.
I was clumsily trying to make a very similar point in my first post, but thanks for doing it so much better.

edited to add props for KeenInsight's keen insight, too.

I don't like articles such as the OP because they are more propaganda than truth, more emotional than informational.

[justdrew]

you're right Jack, it needs a re-write in a few places and a bit of expansion.

this is the Gong I've been trying to Bang for awhile now.

beyond 'disempowering' the effects of going deep into conspiracy "pop" culture are also isolating. In fact if you look at the basic "cult indoctrination steps" a lot of the same processes are at work. It all can become a sort of DIY indoctrination.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing14.html

This is not to say that ALL talk of "hidden history" or conspiracy is bad, but when it becomes exclusive of all that can be done through real political action, that group is generally, now more than ever, neutralized. All they're left with is "waiting for doomsday"

[Canadian_watcher]

clip is only 1:25 long - make sure to pay the closest attention to the last bit of the interview.



It's worth remembering because if we think we can just chip away at inequality and injustice by going from one issue to the next we'd be fighting a losing battle. Almost everything from the foundation up has got to go. And, really, maybe even some of the foundation.

[JackRiddler]

you're right Jack, it needs a re-write in a few places and a bit of expansion.

this is the Gong I've been trying to Bang for awhile now.

beyond 'disempowering' the effects of going deep into conspiracy "pop" culture are also isolating. In fact if you look at the basic "cult indoctrination steps" a lot of the same processes are at work. It all can become a sort of DIY indoctrination.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing14.html

This is not to say that ALL talk of "hidden history" or conspiracy is bad, but when it becomes exclusive of all that can be done through real political action, that group is generally, now more than ever, neutralized. All they're left with is "waiting for doomsday"

Sure, sure, but that is not a description of oh, at least half of RI material on the subject. And the radical lack of a place for agency in deterministic social science analysis is at least as neutralizing, as is implicit in the OP text.

I submit the stuff we know now about 9/11 would have sufficed in dismantling the mythology and had a salutory effect on Western political situations generally, if it had been forced into the discourse with sufficient aggression and without the false paths (the factually false and the strategically false alike), up until the final Commission hearing in June of 2004. After that, the train had arrived.

[Joe Hillshoist]

[nashvillebrook]

you're right Jack, it needs a re-write in a few places and a bit of expansion.

this is the Gong I've been trying to Bang for awhile now.

beyond 'disempowering' the effects of going deep into conspiracy "pop" culture are also isolating. In fact if you look at the basic "cult indoctrination steps" a lot of the same processes are at work. It all can become a sort of DIY indoctrination.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing14.html

This is not to say that ALL talk of "hidden history" or conspiracy is bad, but when it becomes exclusive of all that can be done through real political action, that group is generally, now more than ever, neutralized. All they're left with is "waiting for doomsday"

Saw this in action (inaction) at our local Occupy...in spades. "The imminent collapse" of you-name-it was offered repeatedly as an excuse not to engage in any meaningful discussion of...anything. And it definitely broke down along age demos. College-age kids were constantly breaking up constructive action and/or discussion b/c "what's the point, really."

I'm sympathetic to collapse logic. It was a theme for me when I was in college...but I've always come at it from the angle of "rapid cultural change presents opportunities for both the good and the bad, and so we have a responsibility to act." The post-Alex Jones version of this is "imminent collapse just proves that it's all shit, pass the bong and let's break some windows." It's the same logic, only their action is self-destructive. Literally, most of the kids wound up in jail for frustratingly meaningless acts of "civil disobedience" and are now saddled with huge fines and probation. They were strung along, no less, by a guy who bragged (bragged!) about being a friend of Brandon Darby, and who has since disappeared.

Those who refuse to get smart about who is yanking their chain wind up neutralized. And that's a true conspiracy.

[nashvillebrook]

Starts nicely enough. But after that first jump... Flaunts gaping ignorance about 9/11, which of course is not actually treated. Succumbs to the usual anti-conspiracist tropes and general strawmanning with no distinction made or interest in a factual approach to different ideas. The "1%" is conspiracy theory?! There are no ruling classes who can express themselves over long historical periods even against ultimate trend? Things aren't done for anyone in particular? Ha. Where is there room for class war in all this? What about caste, racism, ethnicity, cultural factors? Where is there room for the interests of the powerful finding expression? Is neoliberalism, the actively plotted class war of the last 35+ years, also a conspiracy theory? It's true that capitalism runs into perpetual crises due to failure to accumulate, and that these force almost all actors to conform to serving accumulation ueber alles. It's true in the abstract. That doesn't mean capitalism will always find the way to accumulate most efficiently, or that existing power centers simply yield to the logic of maximum accumulation. That always involves a fight. Inefficient actors in capitalist terms use their existing weight to maintain their own interests regardless of what ideal capital accumulation would "want." Thus Microsoft still exists. Military-industrial-intel-deepstate complexes construct the threats they need to get a fat slice of total wealth that in pure capitalist terms would be better devoted elsewhere. Sometimes, furthermore, politics yields to the need of maintaining society and social peace on some minimum basis, so you have New Deals and welfare states with the support of some of the rich, while class war is fought by the bulk of the ownership class to overturn these. There really are differences in what different elites plan and want, and who comes out supreme among them matters. Yes, sorry, take the Rockefellers (modern day) over the Kochs and then fight for more. Some institutions hold a special power to fuck all other capital concentrations if they need to (banks, in particular). Sometimes capitalist politics yields to nationalism where these do genuinely conflict. US apartheid was ultimately worn down by the needs of capital, but most of the owners thereof, along with most of the population, remained devoted to racist ideology and it took a long struggle of an organized movement without which the needs of capital would not alone have turned the tide. (Who the hell is preaching powerlessness, given that history?) And racism continues, of course. Ideology matters, what different actors think and want matters, power matters, movements matter, agency exists, outcomes are not entirely predetermined by abstract workings and imperatives of capital.

So yeah, in short, it's fatally flawed and mechanistic thinking as one-dimensional as that which it purports to refute.

Totally sympathetic to this, especially the 1% and 9/11 angles and finer points about elitism. I think the author falls down repeatedly as s/he attempts to strawman any conspiracy narrative....it undermines the very good point about power mapping. It reads to me like the writer is young and trying to form a Theory Of Everything when all that really needs to be done is to say "keep your eye on the ball."

Primarily what's useful in this essay is the power-building idea...that it's disempowering to point to a sexy mystical boogieman instead of unsexy criminals stealing money and power. And we have to recognize that not everything we do is power-building. We just need to get better at it, and keep up with the research and critique that fuels empowerment.

So, what does this look like? Community/political organizers use "grand narrative" all the time. The research organizations that they use get down into the details of the "actors acting cohesively" and present data that backs up the grand narrative, naming names and extrapolating consequences. It's up to other organizations to use this data in a way that builds power. When they take that message out to the press, they don't say that "infant mortality rates in the U.S. are a result of The System." It's implied, but what they're paid to do is to identify the places where change can be affected. So, you never say "it's The System," IF, what you want to do is to build power out in the world.

"It's The System" conversations definitely happen all the time as a part of the research process...but on the professional level it has to be targeted, or else there's nothing to publish. Their job is to take the "occult" and make it plain as day.

We're not professionals. We mire ourselves in the discussion, and that's definitely the more interesting end of the stick. The discussion still matters. The discussion is still primary and still fundamental to affecting change. The crit is that if/when you switch gears to affecting change, you change the language. It has to be distilled into actionable bits.

Which, in my thinking, should be a whole lot easier that it has proven to be...especially with 9/11. I still hold the Hegelian view that if people just had the smallest sense of what was really happening...or were inclined to question the dominate narrative, we'd never stand for another Cheney/Bush administration ever again.

That's the greatest sorrow from all these unanswered conspiracies. That, as long as they're left unanswered, there's nothing learned and there's no chance to avoid a worse scenario in the future.