Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[seemslikeadream]

[TheBlackSheep]

If you take the first line of the wikipedia article on conspiracy theory as an accurate description of what constitutes a conspiracy theory:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses three or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation."

I think it would be pretty hard to deny such conspiracies exist in one form or another. Isn't much (not necessarily all) of investigative journalism by this definition "conspiracy theory" ?


I see down on the wikipedia page under the heading Aquired derogatory meaning it says (among other things):

"A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis"


I am just throwing this up here because it seems we are getting into arguements about conspiracy theory perhaps for reasons that defy the reality of the situation. If we are equating conspiracy theory with groundless conjecture, sure... but if we are equating it with the attempt of a historical analysis or investigation of events that have been covered up, then I don't really see what there is to ridicule.

I guess that is why I asked in an earlier post on this topic whether the notion of conspiracy theory is being separated in this thread (by its OP or whoever else) from that of historical analysis or investigative journalism. Because if we are taking it to be the same, I don't really see the grounds for criticism unless you are saying people should stop investigating hidden events and analyizing such history...

I am guessing that what is being objected to is when an individual (or whoever) states and insists on their conjecture or theory's correctness before producing the evidence to confirm it?

[minime]

Begin with the self, then the venue, then the medium.

[TheBlackSheep]

I really hate Jones for his part in the Vaccine Hysteria which has already led to a few child deaths due to preventable diseases. If you look at that video I posted he also opposes people in third world countries getting vaccines. I dont think for a second that Jones believes that crap or half the crap he spews most of the time, so he has knowingly contributed to the deaths of several children and advocates for even more children to die in the third world.

And outside any moral outrage, Jones has been involved in spreading a lot of disinfo. Hes one of the main sources for the squibs in the towers theory(now its thermite, funny how that keeps changing) and the biggest proponent of the controlled demolition meme in general. Hes the reason that after every shooting or bombing a chorus of idiots starts screaming "false flag!", which of course makes actually researching potential deep political connections in these events a chore. For every legitimate topic he brings up he also brings up a few bullshit stories, and even the legit topics are so distorted and poorly covered that he does more harm than good.

Thank you, I find this helpful. I actually never really watched or read much of Alex Jones's work. I was mainly familiar with a documentary called State of Mind which I don't think he was the creator of (I may be wrong) but aired it on his program. I looked up the information in that documentary and things did seem to yield results... It mentioned Bernays (who I had already heard about) as well as brought up the work of Quigley (that was my first time hearing about it)... as well as criticisms about education, which led me to find an actual document in the US beaurocracy which is published in their archives...

I don't really browse the news that much because I find most articles to be somewhat irrelevant and often more like trivia than anything else... I just wanted some legitimate understanding of why Jones would be an unhelpful source for the future.

[Sounder]

Sounder » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:09 pm wrote:

To my mind conspiracy theory pertains to individual events and can in no way function as an explanatory mechanism for assessing or accessing a deeper understanding of life or the world.

For that we would do well to produce a better map of our psyches’ so that we might explain how it is that we seem to be so stupid and smart at the same time.

Sort of what I was getting at here:

jakell » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:22 pm wrote:
My own...... Start from a narrow base, ie real word events and as current as possible, and build carefully from there. If no real world events fit the desired narrative, don't invent and confabulate, find something more constructive to do.
Don't let the tail wag the dog.

and also why I questioned why all the heavy ideology was deemed a prerequisite as was suggested in the OP.

As Morris Berman and I have said in the past; an idea is something a person has while an ideology has a person.

Ideas can interact with other ideas and produce something still greater while ideology 'pre-screens' ideas thereby reducing potentials for growth.

On the ground; I see progressive people effectively aligned with the aims of imperialism.

For reasons apparently quite unappealing to contemplate.

The tail is wagging the dog.



Thanks minime


To theBlackSheep, I don't ridicule conspiracy theory although I do have a personal conviction that the 'container' for our information is a much larger determining factor for general events than is the volume of information one might process.

[TheBlackSheep]

I do have a personal conviction that the 'container' for our information is a much larger determining factor for general events than is the volume of information one might process.

I'm not really sure that I understand what you're saying with this. If you are saying that the amount of information about world events exceeds our capacity to process it all, then I agree. On the other hand, I do think that having an idea of the hidden processes that are shaping the world is also important for an understanding of our situation within the world. In your other post about the mechanics of power you seemed intent on investigating PR tactics and whatnot, and wouldn't those in a sense be considered a type of conspiracy, as the processes that are taking place (formulating the PR strategy) take place beyond clear sight and must be deconstructed after the fact...

To be honest I've read a few of your posts and I find you use a lot of obscurantist language. I saw that you define yourself as a guerilla ontologist. I know that ontology is a philosophical subject, so perhaps you've been inspired from that angle. I made a post in your subject about the mechanics of power about how obscurantism has been a very ancient tactic for sheilding knowledge from the "vulgar masses" as well as for other reasons. I'm not sure if you have a big stake in using that kind of language, but I hope you are aware of its history in fact as a mechanic of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism

[Sounder]

TheBlackSheep, thanks for being strait in telling me how some of my words read to you. I don’t care for obscurantism and jargon either, however I’m in a bit of a pickle there because of my idiosyncratic view of reality (nature).

Sounder » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:50 pm wrote:

I do have a personal conviction that the 'container' for our information is a much larger determining factor for general events than is the volume of information one might process.

I'm not really sure that I understand what you're saying with this. If you are saying that the amount of information about world events exceeds our capacity to process it all, then I agree.

Well that, but also because our ‘split’ modeling of reality greatly limits potential correspondences between categories. While the preceding might be thought of as obscurantist, my intention is allow others to do their own thinking. A fair measure of usefulness for a model is number and depth of the connections (correspondences) between our categories. We make sport of mocking some sub-models, but spend little time looking for (inherent) flaws of our own model.

On the other hand, I do think that having an idea of the hidden processes that are shaping the world is also important for an understanding of our situation within the world.

Yes me too, but having an idea of the hidden processes only takes us so far.

In your other post about the mechanics of power you seemed intent on investigating PR tactics and whatnot, and wouldn't those in a sense be considered a type of conspiracy, as the processes that are taking place (formulating the PR strategy) take place beyond clear sight and must be deconstructed after the fact...

I would challenge your notion that it must be deconstructed after the fact. Rockefeller did his thing essentially in full sight of everybody; he spread a whole lot-o-money around in such a way as to both guarantee a hefty and continuing return on investment while simultaneously whitewashing a previous horrible reputation.

I hope to deal with this more on the Rockefeller consensus thread. No luck so far, and I’ll admit, if it gets going it might not be pretty.

To be honest I've read a few of your posts and I find you use a lot of obscurantist language. I saw that you define yourself as a guerilla ontologist. I know that ontology is a philosophical subject, so perhaps you've been inspired from that angle.

When you are out on your next walk-about, give it a go as a subject for reflection. Ontology is simply to examine the nature of reality; you do it all the time.

I made a post in your subject about the mechanics of power about how obscurantism has been a very ancient tactic for sheilding knowledge from the "vulgar masses" as well as for other reasons. I'm not sure if you have a big stake in using that kind of language, but I hope you are aware of its history in fact as a mechanic of power.

Yes I do and my intent is to weaken those forces by being in sync with the creation a new narrative that serves the general population so we may supersede this current vertical authority distribution system, and maybe, just maybe, grow up and learn to think for ourselves.

[TheBlackSheep]

I don't really disagree with most of what you say. But I guess I do fundamentally disagree with your choice of presentation. It does sound like your intentions are noble as you state them:

"the creation a new narrative that serves the general population so we may supersede this current vertical authority distribution system"

though I might think less so of:

"grow up and learn to think for ourselves"

To be honest I find it a little presumptuous to assume just because we wouldn't convolute our speech that others wouldn't think. Besides, I believe that should be an inherent choice for anyone on the earth, as strange as that sounds... I'm sure it will be none the less. That being said, it is also your own choice (I am stating this as a matter of course, not giving my permission) how you want to present your ideas.

In the past I was actually of a similar mind to you on my use of language. I can send you a book I wrote a few years ago if you wish to see it, though I personally have turned away from that so I don't really look highly on that piece of writing.

I'm sure there are more inclusive ways of helping people to think and concontemplate that are more inclusive. As my sentiments are growing more strongly towards the democratic I find myself striving more in that direction.

Surely the language we use will seem like a stumbling block towards us understanding each other fully (I mean in the use of simple language, not between me and you) because generally a person would reach out for the simplest and most straight forward definition of any word. I personally feel like I can look past that (can, not always do)... in reality I think that is also part of the inherent nature of language, because no word can be defined in isolation but always entails a connection to a multiplicity of concepts.

I've had enough people disagree with me here and other places and give me very valid things to think about using plain language. I might also think that encouragement and inclusiveness would bring others to a love of thinking... anyway that's just my opinion, and I'm sure if you're thinking you will be well on your way to forming your own with or without anyone's permission.

As for the deconstruction thing, that may very well be insufficient to describe the processes we need to go through for a better understanding, but then again will any number of words sufficiently encapsulate the world and our experience?

I am not sure which Rockefeller you were referring to, perhaps John D Jr.? for those who were not around at the time or else are not even familiar with the Rockefeller name (the majority of the population) will probably have to first confront the edifice built up by money then break it down (deconstruct) to get at some deeper kernels... unless you're first introduction is through some kind of conspiracy source that is... anyway, this is all sort of nitpicking so

[BrandonD]

Connected to this I think it might be helpful to ask, how do we know exactly when we are facing a valid source?

The idea of one "valid source" ultimately ends up being a justification for laziness, as well as an inevitable adoption - to a greater or lesser degree - of that source's biased viewpoint (all sources have em, they are human beings). The keyword is: cross-reference. Always cross-reference between multiple sources.

That said, I would definitely agree with the position that some sources are more accurate than others.

[Sounder]

Thanks TheBlackSheep for your well considered reply.

But I guess I do fundamentally disagree with your choice of presentation.

The following was a past reply, born of a much less graceful assertion that I spout 'mystic jive'.

As Paul Feyerabend writes in Against Method at the end of chapter three. (Great book, the footnotes alone make reading this book worth the effort.)
Mills views and Bohr’s procedure are not only an expression of their liberal attitude; they also reflect their conviction that a pluralism of ideas and forms of life is an essential part of any rational inquiry concerning the nature of things.

Or to speak more generally: Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is compatible with a humanitarian outlook. (To the extent to which the consistency condition delimits variety, it contains a theological element which lies, of course, in the worship of ‘facts’ so characteristic of nearly all empiricism.)

My ‘mystic jive’ is nothing more than adopting exploratory thought as a better path to rationality. People who live by confirmatory thought tend to lash out in preference to listening for signals from the heart or sub-consciousness. Some call this the ‘still small voice’. OK, so that part is ‘mystic’, but Christ man, it’s a really quiet voice.

OK, my basic theme lo these past seven years has been to assert; The power elite has learned through long experience that by imposing double binds, usually in the form of some variation of; ‘I am God, -you shut the fuck up’, will result in fractured psyches where most of our energy is spent trying to heal a split, that is a product of the pretzel logic required to live with the imposed double bind. Many then think it’s not worth it to create a conscious model that rearranges our unconscious drivers because exposure of our part in this play is too embarrassing to bear.

So my hypothesis is not mystic or even that complicated. It is simply to say; the power elite maintain their position by cultivating fractured psyches among the general population and conversely, by finding ways to integrate the different layers of our psyches, we do our proper and obligatory part to undermine false power and to re-place that power to where it belongs, which is the individual psyche.

Healthy now because it is willing to embrace the shadow.


It can be quite a trick for what are essentially anti-authoritarians to turn their frustrations into something positive.

Because of some odd conditioning events of my young years, I have developed my own idiosyncratic model of reality that has enabled a life that is quite satisfying.

Our dominant narrative has glaring shortcomings, but we do not yet do much to examine those things. Its markers and language brainwash (NWO).

The current narrative cannot sustain us, but if we realize a new narrative, it may not 'sound' at all like the old one.

[TheBlackSheep]

The idea of one "valid source" ultimately ends up being a justification for laziness, as well as an inevitable adoption - to a greater or lesser degree - of that source's biased viewpoint (all sources have em, they are human beings). The keyword is: cross-reference. Always cross-reference between multiple sources.

That said, I would definitely agree with the position that some sources are more accurate than others.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, the issue I was getting at is, how do we know (or can we know) who is lying or themselves misled? If we cross reference and two sources (lets say mainstream media) and then one non-mainstream source tells the same line, and then we have another source (or multiple) that give a different line, in what way do we decipher which one (if any) is telling the truth? Even if we then had a third source which tells now another story, that neither reconciles with A or B, the issue is the same. I wasn't necessarily saying that there must be "one valid source".

"Connected to this I think it might be helpful to ask, how do we know exactly when we are facing a valid source?"

To put it in other words, how do we know when a source is valid?

I tried to make that clear in my original post, in particular by ending it with the thought "In the future might it not become next to impossible to actually know what is going on?" Implying that I was skeptical if any source at all could be considered infallibly valid, rather than implying that there existed "one valid source".

[TheBlackSheep]

My ‘mystic jive’ is nothing more than adopting exploratory thought as a better path to rationality. People who live by confirmatory thought tend to lash out in preference to listening for signals from the heart or sub-consciousness. Some call this the ‘still small voice’. OK, so that part is ‘mystic’, but Christ man, it’s a really quiet voice.

OK, my basic theme lo these past seven years has been to assert; The power elite has learned through long experience that by imposing double binds, usually in the form of some variation of; ‘I am God, -you shut the fuck up’, will result in fractured psyches where most of our energy is spent trying to heal a split, that is a product of the pretzel logic required to live with the imposed double bind. Many then think it’s not worth it to create a conscious model that rearranges our unconscious drivers because exposure of our part in this play is too embarrassing to bear.

So my hypothesis is not mystic or even that complicated. It is simply to say; the power elite maintain their position by cultivating fractured psyches among the general population and conversely, by finding ways to integrate the different layers of our psyches, we do our proper and obligatory part to undermine false power and to re-place that power to where it belongs, which is the individual psyche.

Healthy now because it is willing to embrace the shadow.


It can be quite a trick for what are essentially anti-authoritarians to turn their frustrations into something positive.

Because of some odd conditioning events of my young years, I have developed my own idiosyncratic model of reality that has enabled a life that is quite satisfying.

Our dominant narrative has glaring shortcomings, but we do not yet do much to examine those things. Its markers and language brainwash (NWO).

The current narrative cannot sustain us, but if we realize a new narrative, it may not 'sound' at all like the old one.

Hey, I don't disagree with your position, it was just a personal conviction that obscurantist speech isn't going to help people get together and contemplate important issues, but hey I might be wrong... as I mentioned I did go through a similar phase myself so maybe without it I might not be who I am today...

I also am a little unsure of whether creating a new narrative will help break down power relations, those are probably at least to degrees inherent in the way humans interact. Maybe we are capable of evolving beyond those instincts, I will at least *try* not to stand in the way of such a prospect, but most likely these fundamental conflicts are going to remain with us (embedded in our language, psyche, unconscious behavior, etc.) I generally try to accept it (appologies for not taking this stance to what I perceived as being obscurantism in your posts)... I am human after all...

[FourthBase]

The idea of one "valid source" ultimately ends up being a justification for laziness, as well as an inevitable adoption - to a greater or lesser degree - of that source's biased viewpoint (all sources have em, they are human beings). The keyword is: cross-reference. Always cross-reference between multiple sources.

That said, I would definitely agree with the position that some sources are more accurate than others.

I co-sign this in big Hancock lettering.

[Sounder]

Hey, I don't disagree with your position, it was just a personal conviction that obscurantist speech isn't going to help people get together and contemplate important issues, but hey I might be wrong... as I mentioned I did go through a similar phase myself so maybe without it I might not be who I am today...

I prefer to think of my speech as being idiosyncratic. And yes we go through phases and different styles of expression are appropriate for different personalities and for whatever context one chooses to do their 'acting out' in. Folk who are familiar with Abraham Heschel, Morris Berman, Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn might find my language less obscure.

I also am a little unsure of whether creating a new narrative will help break down power relations, those are probably at least to degrees inherent in the way humans interact. Maybe we are capable of evolving beyond those instincts, I will at least not stand in the way of such a prospect, but most likely these fundamental conflicts are going to remain with us (embedded in our language, psyche, unconscious behavior, etc.) I generally try to accept it (appologies for not taking this stance to what I perceived as being obscurantism in your posts)... I am human after all...

This gets more to the meat of the situation.You share with most of the other posters at this site the conviction that much of what we deal with traces back to 'human nature', whereas I take the position that nearly all these things reflect human habits. It is simply the case that deeply engrained habits will appear as being human nature or inherent.

Any narrative will have shortcomings, all future ones included, however it is still open for us to create (realize, if you are a Platonist) a narrative that at the least replaces coercion as the central driver.

I know that at we can do that.

I have, to a significant degree in my own life, and the effects are nothing short of wonderful.

[TheBlackSheep]

This gets more to the meat of the situation.You share with most of the other posters at this site the conviction that much of what we deal with traces back to 'human nature', whereas I take the position that nearly all these things reflect human habits. It is simply the case that deeply engrained habits will appear as being human nature or inherent.

Any narrative will have shortcomings, all future ones included, however it is still open for us to create (realize, if you are a Platonist) a narrative that at the least replaces coercion as the central driver.

I suppose the best response I can give to this at the moment is the quote you provided me with earlier.

As Paul Feyerabend writes in Against Method at the end of chapter three. (Great book, the footnotes alone make reading this book worth the effort.)
Mills views and Bohr’s procedure are not only an expression of their liberal attitude; they also reflect their conviction that a pluralism of ideas and forms of life is an essential part of any rational inquiry concerning the nature of things.

Or to speak more generally: Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is compatible with a humanitarian outlook. (To the extent to which the consistency condition delimits variety, it contains a theological element which lies, of course, in the worship of ‘facts’ so characteristic of nearly all empiricism.)