Premier Rock Forum

nihil wrote:

matthew wrote:

Humphrey Bear wrote:There are no such things as conspiracies in the U.S. The U.S. is immune to conspiracies.

There is no such thing as a bear named "Humphrey".

Irony?

He Exists (Matthew, not Humphrey).

I BELIEVE!!!

Mr. Binary wrote:

nihil wrote:

matthew wrote:

Humphrey Bear wrote:There are no such things as conspiracies in the U.S. The U.S. is immune to conspiracies.

There is no such thing as a bear named "Humphrey".

Irony?

He Exists (Matthew, not Humphrey).

I BELIEVE!!!

http://www.humphreybear.com/

New Crap / Not Crap on the Federal Reserve and the connections between banking and the Illuminati. Also, connections between baking and the Illuminati; Little Debbie is a front for the Rothschilds.

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 263#211263

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

What most people regard as conspiracy theories simply show they have a totally naive understanding of global capitalism and relationships of power.

Ooooh, "those bad men that own all the stuff are conspiring to keep their stuff and maybe get some more!!!"

Surprise, fucking surprise.

My problem with conspiracy theories is that in all cases I've seen of them, their ends justify their means. There is some conclusion that has been reached, and then facts are usually re-tooled to support this conclusion.

It might be fun and somewhat theatrical to think of conspiracy theories, but in the end they're called "theories" for a reason.

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

Gramsci wrote:That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

What?? Yeah, Gramsci, the CIA's interventions into Guatemala and Costa Rica and El Salvador and Nicaragua and Ecuador and Brazil and Chile and Uruguay and Panama all were covered in real time by the US media! Right! And when I got to high school, I was issued Chomsky books as textbooks! Since these meddlings in the affairs of foreign governments certainly did happen behind the scenes and behind a wall of disinformation and propaganda, they can most certainly be described as conspiracies!

Hey, Gramsci- nobody on the Left ever needed to buy books like these to find out what the CIA was up to in Latin America, because it all happened under the bright lights of television! < snicker...>

You crack me the fuck up. You read my very accurate description of US conspiracies to interfere with unfriendly governments, and you start ranting about conspiracy theories?? Number one, can't you tell the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories, and number two, can't you understand that when Chomsky elaborates on the available evidence with his speculative analysis, he is writing conspiracy theories? What do you think Manufacturing Consent is, but a conspiracy theory of opinion management techniques??

The socially-acceptable Left loves Chomsky, so they defend him from the critics who say that Manufacturing Consent is a conspiracy theory, when, if they had balls that ever dropped, they would understand that Manufacturing Consent is a Conspiracy Theory, and it's a very good Conspiracy Theory, and we need many more good Conspiracy Theories.
Instead, the socially-acceptable Left is determined to deny that MC is a conspiracy theory, and Chomsky happily accepts their goofy defense of him, because if Chomsky ever accepted his role as a conspiracy theorist, he might need to stop lying about JFK or 9/11 or international finance.

Seriously dude, thanks for hunting down my every word looking for your 'big moment' to attack me- it's hilarious. Bitter dork...

unarmedman wrote:It might be fun and somewhat theatrical to think of conspiracy theories, but in the end they're called "theories" for a reason.

Yeah, man, like totally. You got me there. There's no place for 'theories' in my world either.

Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory.

Nobody never got nowhere by messing wit dem dam theories


See you by the cement pond, U Man.

crap.

But I'm also not sure I agree with this:

Andrew L. wrote:In social theory Fredric Jameson has suggested,

Conspiracy is the poor person's cognitive mapping in the postmodern age; it is a degraded figure of the total logic of late capital, a desperate attempt to represent the latter's system.

Jameson suggests that conspiracy theories are an attempt to account for events within the fragmented experience of modern life. Conspiracies provide an illusion of identity and location for the theorist (I/we are being fucked with here in this way) and attempt to capture or localize power, extracting it from the ever more circuitous and opaque systems through which it operates. I don't know how far to take this kind of social psychoanalysis, but Jameson sees conspiracy theories as a quasi-hysterical and symptomatic reaction to the aporias of (post)modernity.

Jameson is a very smart guy and a Marxist, and he too has no truck with conspiracy theories.

"poor man's cognitive mapping?"

Bullshit. At least cognitive mapping is systematically documented, has a grounding in logic and empirical study, and can be tied into future discoveries as another "converging line of evidence."

Conspiracy theories have none of these qualities. They are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence.

I think I probably agree with Jameson in the abstract, but I think this particular metaphor is weak.

Steve Albini is the new black. Pass it on.




CRAP