Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[jakell]

An angle on the whole conspiracy theory thing that I've never really deemed particularly signicant before** is conspiracy theory as escapism. In fact I used to see it as almost a component of it.

Of course, there's nothing new about this, it was basically the idea behind Illuminatus and other lesser known works, it does come to the fore though when a serious researcher runs up against this, and is beset by casual (internet fueled?) dippers looking for entertainment, usually ones who are not particularly affected by the issues and therefore lack a sense of context. If such people are prolific, they could arguably be seen as spammers

In the pursuit of rigour, one of the important initial stages is to find ways to tell these people apart in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. This is not at all easy, because it depends on the tolerance of the environment too, still, I have developed one or two yardsticks.

**as times change, and especially worsen, escapism can become exponentially more popular.

There is a long and ugly history of casual and prolific use of charges of "Zionism" in order to slough off valid critiques of Jewish Banker Theory/Holocaust Revisionism/Elders of Zion Theory- all that crap that goes back through the Reich and through to the era of the Czar, at least.

That is a form of escapism, too...

If a purpose can be defined, then it is not really casual.

This is not what I meant by 'escapism'

[American Dream]

An angle on the whole conspiracy theory thing that I've never really deemed particularly signicant before** is conspiracy theory as escapism. In fact I used to see it as almost a component of it.

Of course, there's nothing new about this, it was basically the idea behind Illuminatus and other lesser known works, it does come to the fore though when a serious researcher runs up against this, and is beset by casual (internet fueled?) dippers looking for entertainment, usually ones who are not particularly affected by the issues and therefore lack a sense of context. If such people are prolific, they could arguably be seen as spammers

In the pursuit of rigour, one of the important initial stages is to find ways to tell these people apart in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. This is not at all easy, because it depends on the tolerance of the environment too, still, I have developed one or two yardsticks.

**as times change, and especially worsen, escapism can become exponentially more popular.

There is a long and ugly history of casual and prolific use of charges of "Zionism" in order to slough off valid critiques of Jewish Banker Theory/Holocaust Revisionism/Elders of Zion Theory- all that crap that goes back through the Reich and through to the era of the Czar, at least.

That is a form of escapism, too...

If a purpose can be defined, then it is not really casual.

This is not what I meant by 'escapism'

If a purpose can be defined, then it can be termed "Psy-Ops", which is sleazy and unethical.

[jakell]

Yep, evidently neither casual, nor escapism.

An angle on the whole conspiracy theory thing that I've never really deemed particularly signicant before** is conspiracy theory as escapism. In fact I used to see it as almost a component of it.

Of course, there's nothing new about this, it was basically the idea behind Illuminatus and other lesser known works, it does come to the fore though when a serious researcher runs up against this, and is beset by casual (internet fueled?) dippers looking for entertainment, usually ones who are not particularly affected by the issues and therefore lack a sense of context. If such people are prolific, they could arguably be seen as spammers

In the pursuit of rigour, one of the important initial stages is to find ways to tell these people apart in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. This is not at all easy, because it depends on the tolerance of the environment too, still, I have developed one or two yardsticks.

**as times change, and especially worsen, escapism can become exponentially more popular.

[jakell]

In addition to viewing Conspiracy Theory as escapism, I'm going to take that a little further and look at CT as self-indulgence, in other words, broaching the awful thought that there might be some negatives involved. Personally I look at this approach as trying to develop rigour.

Now, there's nothing wrong with escapism or self-indulgence, and to a degree they are even beneficial, but left to run loose they can lead to solipsism and obsession, and in relation to CT, simply the amassing of data inside a poorly constructed or deteriorating framework. One point regarding the framework is that this should be flexible enough to respond to changing times or circumstances, there are plenty of examples of inflexible frameworks around from political ideologies to fundamentalist religions. I tend to put most of these under the heading of fundamentalism.

I only have one real tool to prevent me from falling into self indulgance, and that is to use my own presence as a yardstick (there is the matter of what constitutes 'presence' in cyberspace, but that's another issue). Unless you are confined to a bed in an institution (or self confining), then your presence in the world will have enough depth and variety to produce a decent set of lenses for looking at it, if you don't think it does then you aren't looking properly, are asleep on your feet, or are almost braindead.

Re-focussing on the self is one way of regaining perspective. there are an enormous amount of CT's possible, all with enormous amounts of data linked to them (accurate, innacurate, or a mixture of the two), and a virtually infinite amount of speculation that can be done. If you don't have a functional yardstick or a recognisable framework, then eventual self-indulgence is more likely.

[American Dream]

In addition to viewing Conspiracy Theory as escapism, I'm going to take that a little further and look at CT as self-indulgence, in other words, broaching the awful thought that there might be some negatives involved. Personally I look at this approach as trying to develop rigour.

Now, there's nothing wrong with escapism or self-indulgence, and to a degree they are even beneficial, but left to run loose they can lead to solipsism and obsession, and in relation to CT, simply the amassing of data inside a poorly constructed or deteriorating framework. One point regarding the framework is that this should be flexible enough to respond to changing times or circumstances, there are plenty of examples of inflexible frameworks around from political ideologies to fundamentalist religions. I tend to put most of these under the heading of fundamentalism.

I only have one real tool to prevent me from falling into self indulgance, and that is to use my own presence as a yardstick (there is the matter of what constitutes 'presence' in cyberspace, but that's another issue). Unless you are confined to a bed in an institution (or self confining), then your presence in the world will have enough depth and variety to produce a decent set of lenses for looking at it, if you don't think it does then you aren't looking properly, are asleep on your feet, or are almost braindead.

Re-focussing on the self is one way of regaining perspective. there are an enormous amount of CT's possible, all with enormous amounts of data linked to them (accurate, innacurate, or a mixture of the two), and a virtually infinite amount of speculation that can be done. If you don't have a functional yardstick or a recognisable framework, then eventual self-indulgence is more likely.

I agree with the general thrust of the above but the Devil is in the details: If, for example, that framework is organized around some sort of Third Positionist/National Anarchist type shite, then all your efforts are not only wasted but ultimately in the service of negative/destructive goals...

[jakell]

The post is entirely intended to discuss generalities. As ever, specifics can trump generalities, or vice versa if wished.

It can be seen that generalities are the sole subject here:

In addition to viewing Conspiracy Theory as escapism, I'm going to take that a little further and look at CT as self-indulgence, in other words, broaching the awful thought that there might be some negatives involved. Personally I look at this approach as trying to develop rigour.

Now, there's nothing wrong with escapism or self-indulgence, and to a degree they are even beneficial, but left to run loose they can lead to solipsism and obsession, and in relation to CT, simply the amassing of data inside a poorly constructed or deteriorating framework. One point regarding the framework is that this should be flexible enough to respond to changing times or circumstances, there are plenty of examples of inflexible frameworks around from political ideologies to fundamentalist religions. I tend to put most of these under the heading of fundamentalism.

I only have one real tool to prevent me from falling into self indulgance, and that is to use my own presence as a yardstick (there is the matter of what constitutes 'presence' in cyberspace, but that's another issue). Unless you are confined to a bed in an institution (or self confining), then your presence in the world will have enough depth and variety to produce a decent set of lenses for looking at it, if you don't think it does then you aren't looking properly, are asleep on your feet, or are almost braindead.

Re-focussing on the self is one way of regaining perspective. there are an enormous amount of CT's possible, all with enormous amounts of data linked to them (accurate, innacurate, or a mixture of the two), and a virtually infinite amount of speculation that can be done. If you don't have a functional yardstick or a recognisable framework, then eventual self-indulgence is more likely.

[TheBlackSheep]

I'm kind of confused by some of the discussion going on in this thread, if someone would give me a bit of an explanation I would appreciate it. There is quite a bit of talk, from the first post and beyond to these last few posts about 'conspiracy theory' being centered around a type of ideology, whether it be an anti-ideology or whichever other ideology in focus (in a post above "Third Position/National Anarchist").

I'm not sure if there is something that I am missing. Is it being proposed that the conspiracy theorizing in some forms are based around an ideology in such a way that the issues being adressed (the "facts" that the theory is based on) is shaped by that ideology. Or is it being proposed that the contents of a 'conspiracy theory' is being used as a justification for the proposition/ defense in favor of a certain ideology, or something else entirely?

I'm just not really sure how ideology formally fits into the discussion, beyond perhaps that certain actions that are examined (as being conspiratorial) are taken as a result of an ideology of one or many of the 'players' involved in the conspiracy.

Anyone wish to give me a hand understanding what the issue is here?

[jakell]

I'm kind of confused by some of the discussion going on in this thread, if someone would give me a bit of an explanation I would appreciate it. There is quite a bit of talk, from the first post and beyond to these last few posts about 'conspiracy theory' being centered around a type of ideology, whether it be an anti-ideology or whichever other ideology in focus (in the last post above "Third Position/National Anarchist".

I'm not sure if there is something that I am missing. Is it being proposed that conspiracy theory in some forms are based around an ideology in such a way that the issues being adressed (the "facts" that the theory is based on) is shaped by that ideology. Or is it being proposed that the contents of a 'conspiracy theory' is being used as a justification for the proposition/ defense in favor of a certain ideology, or something else entirely?

I'm just not really sure how ideology formally fits into the discussion, beyond perhaps that certain actions that are examined (as being conspiratorial) are taken as a result of an ideology of one or many of the 'players' involved in the conspiracy.

Anyone wish to give me a hand understanding what the issue is here?

Best not to assume there is a singular 'issue' at stake, because there isn't really one.

The OP was quite strong on an ideological based approach to CT, but when it turned out that no-one was really interested in that narrow approach, instead of pressing the point, he just faded away.

It is because of this fading away (or rather fading in and out) that there is no singular issue, and why I went on to talk about some more general points related to rigour in conspiracy theory.

[American Dream]

I'm kind of confused by some of the discussion going on in this thread, if someone would give me a bit of an explanation I would appreciate it. There is quite a bit of talk, from the first post and beyond to these last few posts about 'conspiracy theory' being centered around a type of ideology, whether it be an anti-ideology or whichever other ideology in focus (in a post above "Third Position/National Anarchist").

I'm not sure if there is something that I am missing. Is it being proposed that the conspiracy theorizing in some forms are based around an ideology in such a way that the issues being adressed (the "facts" that the theory is based on) is shaped by that ideology. Or is it being proposed that the contents of a 'conspiracy theory' is being used as a justification for the proposition/ defense in favor of a certain ideology, or something else entirely?

I'm just not really sure how ideology formally fits into the discussion, beyond perhaps that certain actions that are examined (as being conspiratorial) are taken as a result of an ideology of one or many of the 'players' involved in the conspiracy.

Anyone wish to give me a hand understanding what the issue is here?

I'll speak only for myself:

My critical comments regarding "Third Positionist/National Anarchist type shite" relate to ongoing differences with jakell.

I personally am interested in strengthening- and undertaking- conspiracy investigation that, while not quite agit-prop, is guided by the radical Left perspectives I find to be important. Tom Burghardt is a foremost exponent of this sort of thing to me- both in terms of rigour, and in terms of political perspective.

[TheBlackSheep]

My appologies if I appear a bit slow or am mistaken, but you're meaning to say that your view on conspiracies that have taken place (or that you perceive as important) are shaped by 'radical left' paradigm of sorts, and you are arguing in a sense against certain other political positions? If this is true then I am taking this to be part of a stream of thought that all perspective is informed by a certain ideological positioning which is to a greater or lesser degree inevitable, but nonetheless informs what we take to be important as 'facts', ideas, solutions, etc.

Am I on the right track here at all?

[American Dream]

My appologies if I appear a bit slow or am mistaken, but you're meaning to say that your view on conspiracies that have taken place (or that you perceive as important) are shaped by 'radical left' paradigm of sorts, and you are arguing in a sense against certain other political positions? If this is true then I am taking this to be part of a stream of thought that all perspective is informed by a certain ideological positioning which is to a greater or lesser degree inevitable, but nonetheless informs what we take to be important as 'facts', ideas, solutions, etc.

Am I on the right track here at all?

Two different things, mostly.

On the one hand, I am talking about the work that I personally would want to do- and would love to collaborate with others on.

On the other hand, I am referring to political positions that I strongly repudiate: those coming from the revolutionary right, in all its various guises.

I don't think over the top agit-prop is very useful in general but I do think that having a point of view is valid and important.

[TheBlackSheep]

Two different things, mostly.

On the one hand, I am talking about the work that I personally would want to do- and would love to collaborate with others on.

On the other hand, I am referring to political positions that I strongly repudiate: those coming from the revolutionary right, in all its various guises.

I don't think over the top agit-prop is very useful in general but I do think that having a point of view is valid and important.

I think I have a better understanding now. Much appreciated.

Does anyone know if there is a past thread centered around a discussion of the left-right spectrum? I think it would be an interesting thread. I've always had a problem with that idea personally, but maybe that is because I perceive pretty much every pre-existing political regime to be to a degree authoritarian if only because of the structure of social institutions themselves if not necessarily the directives of the governments directly...

Also there is this online political spectrum test thing (which I have huge reservations about, among other things because some of the questions are very leading, something like "If this is already going to happen, which would you rather a which makes no difference or b which makes less difference?) and it divides the spectrum between left/right as well as authoritarian/libertarian... it would be interesting to have a more in depth discussion about what people think are the important factors in this regard (perhaps)...

[jakell]

Two different things, mostly.

On the one hand, I am talking about the work that I personally would want to do- and would love to collaborate with others on.

On the other hand, I am referring to political positions that I strongly repudiate: those coming from the revolutionary right, in all its various guises.

I don't think over the top agit-prop is very useful in general but I do think that having a point of view is valid and important.

I think I have a better understanding now. Much appreciated.

Does anyone know if there is a past thread centered around a discussion of the left-right spectrum? I think it would be an interesting thread. I've always had a problem with that idea personally, but maybe that is because I perceive pretty much every pre-existing political regime to be to a degree authoritarian if only because of the structure of social institutions themselves if not necessarily the directives of the governments directly...

Also there is this online political spectrum test thing (which I have huge reservations about, among other things because some of the questions are very leading, something like "If this is already going to happen, which would you rather a which makes no difference or b which makes less difference?) and it divides the spectrum between left/right as well as authoritarian/libertarian... it would be interesting to have a more in depth discussion about what people think are the important factors in this regard (perhaps)...

This subject is so broad as to be present in most threads. As it has the potential to generate so much useless noise, the real question to ask is "is this a useful differentiation? ", asking yourself this can save a lot of wasted time.
This is one of the main reasons I question why initial ideology is deemed important when investigating conspiracies, as has been forwarded here.

If you're looking for a good stance to view both left and right from, then anarchism can offer the best perspectives. From what I've seen though, unless you are very patient and resillient, this is not a good environment to pursue this in.

[TheBlackSheep]

Sure, I get ya. I don't really mind debate much... It's pretty normal that people will blow up when discussing opinions and getting criticized...

I've also been skeptical of how useful the left-right paradigms are for a few reasons... though generally I would align myself with a left stance... that being said certain things that are done in the name of a leftist ideology I am very much against... I don't at all agree with an ends justifies the means point of view because it seems to me that the means are the ends, at a certain moment in time.

I'm a little unsure of what you mean by anarchism being a good stance to view the left-right paradigm for a few reasons... Firstly, I had tried writing on the libcom.org forum before finding this one and I had my thread deleted for asking questions about the bilderberg group and the responses were pretty hostile... they claimed to be an anarchist community and gave me a raft of pages to read saying "this is what we believe here", and I had no idea that anarchists would all adhere to a single rigid ideology...

Also I know there are groups like the black bloc that advertise themselves as anarchist, and judging by some of their activities, I'm not that sure I would find a completely neutral analysis of the situation from that direction...

What I mean by this is that while you are saying that anarchism might be a good perspective to take a step back and look at things from, it seems to me that anarchism, along with most ideologies, are not really that clear cut.

I'm sort of curious from American Dream's comments above what ultimate effect you would like to acheive through the investigation and distribution of 'conspiracy theory' as you see it?

[American Dream]

Sure, I get ya. I don't really mind debate much... It's pretty normal that people will blow up when discussing opinions and getting criticized...

I've also been skeptical of how useful the left-right paradigms are for a few reasons... though generally I would align myself with a left stance... that being said certain things that are done in the name of a leftist ideology I am very much against... I don't at all agree with an ends justifies the means point of view because it seems to me that the means are the ends, at a certain moment in time.

I'm a little unsure of what you mean by anarchism being a good stance to view the left-right paradigm for a few reasons... Firstly, I had tried writing on the libcom.org forum before finding this one and I had my thread deleted for asking questions about the bilderberg group and the responses were pretty hostile... they claimed to be an anarchist community and gave me a raft of pages to read saying "this is what we believe here", and I had no idea that anarchists would all adhere to a single rigid ideology...

Also I know there are groups like the black bloc that advertise themselves as anarchist, and judging by some of their activities, I'm not that sure I would find a completely neutral analysis of the situation from that direction...

What I mean by this is that while you are saying that anarchism might be a good perspective to take a step back and look at things from, it seems to me that anarchism, along with most ideologies, are not really that clear cut.

I'm sort of curious from American Dream's comments above what ultimate effect you would like to acheive through the investigation and distribution of 'conspiracy theory' as you see it?

My fundamental goal would certainly be positive social change- especially that which gets to the roots of our predicament, inspires people to meaningful action and builds the basis for stronger and more effective action in the future. However, I don't think that prescribing a strict ideology or one required course of action is so helpful.

As to left/right, authoritarian/libertarian and conspiracies. I mentioned in the OP figures like Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Robin Ramsay et al as researchers heading in a positive direction.

I think we should definitely reject Nazi type shite and embrace an antifascist position.

Intellectual rigour is important too, though not in a way that excludes imagination...