conspiracy theories

crap
Total votes: 24 (47%)
not crap
Total votes: 27 (53%)
Total votes: 51

Explanation: conspiracy theories

21
Cranius wrote:
Andrew L. wrote:(is it time to talk about Thomas Pynchon yet?).


Yes. I always felt Pynchon's interest in conspiracies were more to do with his self-indentification, as an author, with the imaginative power of paranoia. His books are an exploration of that as a creative stimulus. Cabalism is a mirror to his own energies and emotionally heightened experiences, such as extreme paranoia, serve to add depth to his arcane plots.


Just to add to that:

His characters are always quixotically searching for an obscure truth, which in itself is a metaphorical crazy hall of mirrors. The truth is always just another analogy.

Gravity's Rainbow works through this medieval understanding of the world (the same worldview that's described in Foucault's The Order of Things). One analogy is mirrored onto another, ad infinitum, until meaning is completely lost.

Where am I going with this...?

Basically, conspiracies are a backwards way of comprehending the world.
Last edited by Cranius_Archive on Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

23
Andrew L. wrote:
Rabbit, your position seems to be that, in theory or hypothetically, conspiracy theories are sensible (you haven't given an example of a conspiracy theory yet). I'd also add that there is a distinct difference between risky or bold investigative journalism and conspiracy theory.



My position is simple.

If 'Conspiracy Theory' is merely a term covering theories that are inaccurate then clearly they are by definition CRAP in the sense that road accidents are CRAP.

If 'Conspiracy Theories' are merely theories relating to conspiracies, some of which will be proved accurate and some inaccurate then I would suggest that a 'Conspiracy Theory' must be judged on an individual basis, and that it would be silly to dismiss all 'Conspiracy Theories' as CRAP.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

24
Champion Rabbit wrote:If 'Conspiracy Theories' are merely theories relating to conspiracies, some of which will be proved accurate and some inaccurate then I would suggest that a 'Conspiracy Theory' must be judged on an individual basis, and that it would be silly to dismiss all 'Conspiracy Theories' as CRAP.


This isn't what the term "conspiracy theories" designates. Just as the term "postrock" does not mean all music that comes after rock music. The term "conspiracy theory" has a specific valence, and designates a specific way of thinking about and conceptualizing events and issues, particularly in the States. See the article I just posted.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

25
Cranius wrote:Crap.

As regards politics: people should pay more attention to what politicians actually say and do--I mean, it's not as if their agendas are that hard to decipher.



You don't need to to pay attention to politicians to learn about conspiracies. Politicians are dogs on leashes. They exist to promote agendas favorable to conspiracies, but they're usually just PR people- they don't draw up the plans. The people who do draw up the plans have no wish to operate in public view, so they tend to more important issues, like killing people.

Don't watch the puppet after you figure out whose hand is in the puppet.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

26
Andrew L. wrote:This isn't what the term "conspiracy theories" designates. Just as the term "postrock" does not mean all music that comes after rock music. The term "conspiracy theory" has a specific valence, and designates a specific way of thinking about and conceptualizing events and issues, particularly in the States. See the article I just posted.


Well ok then.

If a 'Conspiracy Theory' is a theory which wilfully dispenses with logic and reasonable research then it's self-evidently CRAP.

I guess my concept of 'Conspiracy Theory' is/was inaccurate.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

27
clocker bob wrote:
Cranius wrote:As regards politics: people should pay more attention to what politicians actually say and do--I mean, it's not as if their agendas are that hard to decipher.


You don't need to to pay attention to politicians to learn about conspiracies. Politicians are dogs on leashes. They exist to promote agendas favorable to conspiracies, but they're usually just PR people- they don't draw up the plans. The people who do draw up the plans have no wish to operate in public view, so they tend to more important issues, like killing people.


I don't agree with this. Most of the pertinent information needed to comprehend world events are in the public domain, if you're prepared to do the leg work. But if you want to leap to hasty conclusions and get pedantic about insignificant detail, that's up to you.

clocker bob wrote:Don't watch the puppet after you figure out whose hand is in the puppet.


It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

And so on and so on, ad infinitum....
.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

28
Cranius wrote:
Andrew L. wrote:(is it time to talk about Thomas Pynchon yet?).


Yes. I always felt Pynchon's interest in conspiracies were more to do with his self-indentification, as an author, with the imaginative power of paranoia. His books are an exploration of that as a creative stimulus. Cabalism is a mirror to his own energies and emotionally heightened experiences, such as extreme paranoia, serve to add depth to his arcane plots.



So Cranius, would you say that Pynchon's use of conspiracies, paranoia, etc, isn't part of a particularly American imagination or literary consciousness?

Explanation: conspiracy theories

29
Andrew L. wrote:
Capitalism is a system. It is a relation between people mediated by my money, commodities, images, culture, institutions, and so on. It is also a set of rituals. Rituals of thought, behavior and action.

Precisely because capitalism is such an exploitative and violent system however--because misery, havoc and uneven development are its life-blood--it has always required a lot of State violence and terror to persist. Because people organize and resist.

Attempting to locate the Gordian knot or Achilles' heel of such a system in the sinister machinations of a discrete network of suits is, to be as charitable as possible, fundamentally misguided.


Andrew, you seem like an expert on capitalism, so with your trained eye, I don't see what's keeping you from crossing the doorway you're standing in front of.

A capitalist system operating at peak efficiency consolidates wealth into the hands of a small number of people. New people with new products or new ideas get rich, of course, but when they do, they begin to climb the pyramid. Visualize distribution of wealth in a capitalist world, and you don't see a plateau, do you?

This wealth is like an island in an ocean. Events occur in the waters surrounding it, elected officials come and go, governments change direction, but the hands gripping the wealth never flinch. They choose their heirs, they choose their partners. And they make alliances. They die, but the wealth lives on, in New York, in London, in Geneva.

They make alliances to make their businesses more profitable. They conspire. They use their wealth as leverage, shuffling around the livelihoods of the under classes like chess pieces.

You could see these people as suits, as you say. Most of them are white men in suits. You could see their club as a knot, as you say. You or I will never unravel it. Why you don't see these men as conspirators, I don't understand.

They are members of elite organizations who make plans without the oversight or control of any elected representatives. You seem to want to narrow the definition of conspiracy to only allow only a small segment of their daily business to qualify; just because every plan they make isn't followed by the instructions, "Keep this a secret", that's meaningless.

Every plan they make begins life as a secret, in the sense that they never expect to have to answer for it.

They don't have to plot- they just have to do. It's like breathing for them.

You say that people organize and resist the state-sponsored violence required by capitalism. They don't. Even when they think they do, they don't. They kill each other and they draw some blood, but they never get near the top of the pyramid. Bad guys ultimately win, every time.

Control of the wealth swiftly returns to the same capitalists, different names maybe, but usually the same blood lines. The Russian revolution threw out the Romanovs so a different crew of parasites could run things, and they lied and called it communism.

The same elite interests controlled the governments of the USA, the UK, Russia, and Germany during WWII. They concocted a great war to enrich all sides, and yet people have the gall to tell me that a country wouldn't kill 3,000 of its own citizens on 9/11 to provoke a war?

Andrew L. wrote:Maybe capitalism is not your target: maybe it's merely the backdrop to the event under investigation. It's just that the bad guys should be held accountable. But bad guys of this stature are simply not held accountable within the system. Because it's their system. And there's always someone waiting in line to take their place if they are discredited (i.e. the next administration).


Capitalism is not any sane person's target, because capitalism cannot be killed. It runs on greed and lives in all of us, some far more shamefully than others. So I agree, the true bad guys are never going to be held accountable. You can only hope to control capitalism, minimize the voracity of the chewing people up and shitting them out aspect of capitalism.

I look at the people at the top, the ones that I call conspirators, because I hate them. They're evil. I'm powerless to stop them, so trying to trace crime after crime to them is a draining exercise because those efforts will either die on the vine or live on in fringe conspiracy nut land for other kooks to find with Google, but since I have enough free time to permit such a huge waste of time, I intend to persist.

And to persist in examining conspiracy theories. I call it exercising my bullshit detector ( some readers of this forum might think I have broken my bullshit detector with this training, but so be it ). I feel like it helps me to understand economics and politics better when I include conspiracy theories into my studies.
Last edited by clocker bob_Archive on Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Explanation: conspiracy theories

30
clocker bob wrote:
Andrew L. wrote:
Andrew, you seem like an expert on capitalism


God, I know I come across this way. And I am very interested in political economy. But I'm not an expert on anything.

That said, I will respond to you, but I don't have time at the moment. I won't have much to add to the article I already posted, however.

• What characterizes institutional theorizing?

An institutional theory emphasizes roles, incentives, and other institutional dynamics that compel important events and have similar effects over and over. Institutional theorists notice individual actions, but don’t elevate them to prime causes. The point is to learn something about society or history, as compared to learning about particular culpable people. The assumption is that if the particular people hadn’t been there to do the events, someone else would have.

There are, of course, complicating borderline cases. A person trying to discover a possible CIA role in 9-11 could be trying to verify a larger (incorrect) institutional theory—that the U.S. government is run by the CIA. Or a person might be trying to demonstrate that some set of U.S. institutions propels those involved toward conspiring. Someone studying Enron may be doing so not as a conspiracy theorist concerned with condemning the proximate activities of the board of Enron, but rather to make a case (correctly) that U.S. market relations provide a context that make conspiracies against the public by corporate CEOs highly probable. The difference is between trying to understand society by understanding its institutional dynamics versus trying to understand some singular event by understanding the activities of the people involved.


o Why is conspiracy theorizing popular among critics of injustice?

First, conspiracy theories reveal evidence that can identify actual events needing other explanation. More, describing the detailed entwinements can become addictive. The appeal is of the mysterious. It is dramatic, vivid, and human. We can also make steady progress, like in a murder investigation.

Second, conspiracy theories have manageable implications. They imply that all was once well and that it can be okay again if only the conspirators can be removed. Conspiracy theories explain ills without forcing us to disavow society’s underlying institutions. They allow us to admit horrors and to express our indignation and anger or undertake vendettas, but without rejecting the basic norms of society. We discover that a particular government official or corporate lawyer is bad, but the government and law remain okay. We urge getting rid of bad apples, but leaving the orchard intact. We can reject specific candidates but not government, specific CEOs but not capitalism, specific writers, editors, and owners of periodicals, but not mainstream media. We can reject vile manipulators, but not basic institutions. We can continue to appeal to institutions for recognition, status, or payment.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests