Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[American Dream]

Fascism in my opinion is a whirlwind created from the central dark spot, and not a foundational part of the conspiracy.

But then again, this touches upon the great divide among conspiracy-minded people. There are those who think the conspiracy is primarily material; ie politicians and bankers and CIA and mafia, etc - and there are those like myself who think that the conspiracy ultimately originates in a realm that is unseen or "spiritual".

Depending on your point of view on that particular subject, this reflects quite a bit on what aspects of the world of conspiracy are considered most important or fundamental.

I'd say there is room for all of the above- and not that it is impossible to blend the material and the immaterial but that it is more difficult, it depends on your audience. For many people, the immaterial is going to sound more speculative more "out there" and perhaps it will be.

So for mystics and Metaphysicists that may be just right. For others, less speculative sounding, more evidence-based stuff may be more their cup of tea. Some folks blend it all together well. One such person who comes to mind is Jeff Wells.

[BrandonD]

I'd say there is room for all of the above- and not that it is impossible to blend the material and the immaterial but that it is more difficult, it depends on your audience. For many people, the immaterial is going to sound more speculative more "out there" and perhaps it will be.

So for mystics and Metaphysicists that may be just right. For others, less speculative sounding, more evidence-based stuff may be more their cup of tea. Some folks blend it all together well. One such person who comes to mind is Jeff Wells.

Well I for one am pleased to discover that everyone here seems generally flexible about the approach to such an endeavor.

The idea of a "think tank" that would attempt to construct an overarching conspiracy narrative based upon the best available information is hugely appealing to me, and I would love to contribute to such an effort in any way that I could.

[jakell]

I like this idea! With the ridiculous amount of information now available, and with different people "specializing" in different areas of the conspiracy, it seems what is really needed is a network of people to collectively assimilate this information and establish an over-arching narrative model that best explains all the events.

One problem I always tend to see in larger Conspiracy Theories is that there exists a predetermined narrative which tends to dictate which aspects of the Conspiracy are considered most crucial or fundamental.

What aspects do those here consider most crucial? If the ideas are quite divergent then it might be necessary to establish a consensus on a certain number of foundational points.

A key point is building a framework for the assimilation of data ie, before the information stage . An environment that encourages the mere displaying of 'ridiculous amounts' of pure data is one where little can be achieved, and is arguably even retrograde.
So here I'm focussing on environment first and foremost.


Your second paragraph also contains a very important point but I'll address that in another post

[TheBlackSheep]

One problem I always tend to see in larger Conspiracy Theories is that there exists a predetermined narrative which tends to dictate which aspects of the Conspiracy are considered most crucial or fundamental.

I just thought I might give a go at this thought, partly because jakell had signalled it as a direction in his last post.

When facing the thought of a conspiracy, the first questions I generally move to are Who? and Why? (This is after the What has been suggested, I will address that in a moment). The reason I consider the Who is that it generally points to the answers (if there be any) to other questions, in particular How? (examining the position, connections, skills, etc. of the implicated indivdual(s)). And I ask the Why? because it gets close to understanding whether there is relevance in the assertion.

For example, things like big foot have little if any relevance to me, because I find it very difficult to imagine that there could be any importance to me or any of the population at large as to whether big foot exists at all, and on a similar note I see little if any reason why anyone would go through the trouble to cover it up... there are plenty of extremely strange animals that are distant from the everyday experience of individuals.

As for the What? this is generally the determinant of the over-branching narrative, of which the smaller whats are for the most part filling in the How? question.

I guess I am saying here that I would judge the relevance of a conspiracy on how it would affect the population at large.

I have one problem that often causes me to shy away from conspiracy theory in favor of social critique, which is, due to the secretive nature of the material of conspiracy theory, it is nearly impossible to learn of new important details with which to fill the picture. Not necessarily because the machinations of such conspiracies would have to take place solely in secret cabals, but also because even if we desired to examine the roles of certain key individuals or institutions, a lot of the information will be confidential, private, top secret etc. and often it will be through official channels that investigations bring these facts to light, or else over a sufficient length of time that the immediacy of the information is lost.

As for methodology, I am not sure if it is being suggested that the methodology for such a type of theorizing would be different from that used in traditional history. I think it is very important to delinate speculation from the presentation of facts.

[jakell]

I'll comment on that second paragraph now:

One problem I always tend to see in larger Conspiracy Theories is that there exists a predetermined narrative which tends to dictate which aspects of the Conspiracy are considered most crucial or fundamental.

Predetermined narratives can be the a big stumbling block to any investigation .Rather than try and eradicate them (almost impossible) they just need to be laid out so that analysis can be seen in context. This is why I asked at the beginning of the thread why these initial statements were deemed essential.....

........Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". .

I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly [b]anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out..........

Not to jump to the binary of course, and say they are ok, just to question why they are a consideration at all. It seems like ideology is being inserted at the outset, and I'm wondering why this is.

[TheBlackSheep]

I was just thinking in regards to what is taken as the issue that all conspiracy theory will ultimately become equated with these negative connotations (be they fascism, racism, etc.) ... do you not think that a lot of these positions might be purposely created to cast doubt on conspiracy theorizing in general? Not all of them of course, but I suspect a great many, for example figures like David Icke, are no doubt planted to remove credibility from conspiracy theory.

Also on a similar note yet different, has anyone else noticed that a lot of the critique and 'fact' is often put forward by these sources? I'm not sure how far this goes, but for example John Pilger writes a lot about imperial maneuvers from the US and Britain, but a lot of his writing launches in The New Statesman which is a Fabian magazine, and having read certain Fabian works (I've quoted from Fabianism and the Empire on this forum) it seems to me that they would definitely play a role in any kind of overbranching conspiracy...

Another example is Carroll Quigley, I'm pretty sure he was in tight with the elites, yet he is one of the main sources of Conspiracy material...

Has anyone heard Sibel Edmonds talking on Snowden/Greenwald? She brings up some interesting points, like the fact that he is working for an Omidyar sponsored paper now, and Omidyar has aided the NSA and besides is an international capitalist, plus his multimillion dollar movie and book deals... just saying... before I had heard her talking I had actually had a similar thought, that perhaps the Snowden leaks were coming public so that the panopticon would be more successful, people knowing they are being watched and all...

I only bring these things up because from time to time I wonder if there might be an ulterior motive behind letting people in on this information, like why a Fabian magazine would publish criticisms on one of their own members (Tony Blair)...

[Belligerent Savant]

.

TheBlackSheep wrote:
Has anyone heard Sibel Edmonds talking on Snowden/Greenwald?

Got a chuckle out of that one. If you utilize the handy search function (top right of your window) you'll find some healthy nuggets to chew on right here within this forum. I see you're a relative newbie so it's totally understandable that you may have missed it.

I've only perused the comments in this thread -- so pardons in advance for any misrepresentations. Seems some folks have specific 'focus areas' they may be preferential towards within the realm of 'Conspiracy Theory', and are expressing them here to...... hmmm, now that's where I'm not so clear.

Reading some of these comments calls to mind an ad I came across for Al-Jazeera News :


(Note: replace "The News" with "Conspiracy Theory")

Or rather, "Here are the areas of Conspiracy Theory that relate to me, or are of interest to me; and in my hypothetical world, THIS is how I think we should proceed to tackle -- no, scratch that: type about (within this relatively tiny community of somewhat like-minded folks) the many grievous ills of the world in order to attempt to come to consensus on how we can push forward an agenda we can share with other like-minded folks to form a "coalition" that will one-day conquer/overtake the current paradigm and lead to a better world for us all.. "

Takes quite a bit of "grassroots" effort to get such an idea off the ground. I would think such efforts would also require NOT POSTING TO A MESSAGE BOARD VERY OFTEN.

It'd also require substantial collaboration/available resources/funding -- once beyond mere grassroots-phase, and MASS ADOPTION (good luck with that last part given how skilled/ubiquitous our modern global media apparatus has become in tainting the collective mindsets).

If y'all manage to make it past all that, you'll by then surely have the diligent attention of various intel agencies, who will in short order begin to deploy their various infiltration methods to compromise/undermine your efforts or otherwise utilize the media outlets to taint/smear/disinform those still straddling the fence, something they have ample experience with -- years and years of experience, relative to the amount of experience your folks will have in ORGANIZING.

None of this is to say that airing out ideas or just chatting it up with fellow like-minded individuals is a bad thing -- in fact, it's quite constructive and cathartic. I'm sure we all have an interest in affecting change in some form or fashion. My humble suggestion however is to start locally; your neighbor may be a good start.

It'll be tough sledding to obtain substantial change in this zeitgeist. But that surely doesn't mean we shouldn't try. My applause for all of you idealists out there.

But if the net result of this -- chatting within the confines of a message board -- remains within the boundaries of this unique 'community' of ours, it's ultimately little more than a masturbatory exercise, no?

Of course, I'm simply a cynic/grouch/obnoxious lout -- please don't mind me and carry on.

[jakell]

I was just thinking in regards to what is taken as the issue that all conspiracy theory will ultimately become equated with these negative connotations (be they fascism, racism, etc.) ... do you not think that a lot of these positions might be purposely created to cast doubt on conspiracy theorizing in general? Not all of them of course, but I suspect a great many, for example figures like David Icke, are no doubt planted to remove credibility from conspiracy theory.

Also on a similar note yet different, has anyone else noticed that a lot of the critique and 'fact' is often put forward by these sources? I'm not sure how far this goes, but for example John Pilger writes a lot about imperial maneuvers from the US and Britain, but a lot of his writing launches in The New Statesman which is a Fabian magazine, and having read certain Fabian works (I've quoted from Fabianism and the Empire on this forum) it seems to me that they would definitely play a role in any kind of overbranching conspiracy...

Another example is Carroll Quigley, I'm pretty sure he was in tight with the elites, yet he is one of the main sources of Conspiracy material...

Has anyone heard Sibel Edmonds talking on Snowden/Greenwald? She brings up some interesting points, like the fact that he is working for an Omidyar sponsored paper now, and Omidyar has aided the NSA and besides is an international capitalist, plus his multimillion dollar movie and book deals... just saying... before I had heard her talking I had actually had a similar thought, that perhaps the Snowden leaks were coming public so that the panopticon would be more successful, people knowing they are being watched and all...

I only bring these things up because from time to time I wonder if there might be an ulterior motive behind letting people in on this information, like why a Fabian magazine would publish criticisms on one of their own members (Tony Blair)...

I don't think much effort needs to be expended on discrediting conspiracy researchers, after all, these are people who point out that mainsteam views are not adequate for understanding our lives and the world around us. As a great deal of people are emotionally and psychologically invested in the mainstream, it would usually take some sort of awakening (very likely a rude one) to get them out of their comfort zone.
All TBTB need to do is keep people plugged into mainstream views, which is what is already happening.

I notice you mention the elusive 'overarching conspiracy' above, and this is not something I subscribe to. I think it's a snark hunt and is suspiciously like the human craving for the 'theory of everything' which expresses itself through religion, but in lieu of that, through other ideas. Because it is a craving, this makes me wonder about researcher's objectivity.

One thing is certain though. The quest for 'the big one' is an enormous energy sapper and, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think one needs to realise at the outset if this is the objective. Icke always acts like he's after 'the big one' but I see little awareness of this, just the presumption., and without this awareness, perpective can get lost.

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

The primary goal of conspiracy theory, imo, should be to expose hidden truths, not push some ideological goal no matter how noble that might be. Its just not the purpose of Conspiracy Theory, its like trying to start Anti-Fascist Botany. The problem with anti-fascist anti-anything conspiracy theory is that you fall into the trap of denouncing a conspiracy theory because it is fascist, not because it is wrong. And I dont think a new squeaky clean rebranded conspiracy theory is going to convince Right Woos Left types because their conception of conspiracy theory is based off of right wing nutjobs like Alex Jones. As long as those people exist and are the vocal face of conspiracy theory people are always going to associate conspiracy theory with them.

And really I question the usefulness of spreading conspiracy theory. Brainsturbator had a good article, that seems to have vanished, about the 9/11 truth movement that summed it up pretty well. What exactly is the end goal? Do we put the most powerful men and women on the planet on trial? What real good does all of this do outside of making us feel like were part of some enlightened elite spreading secret knowledge to the unwashed masses? I dont mean this in a dickish way, I honestly dont know the answer to this. I dont know why I keep studying Conspiracy Theory myself outside of some compulsive desire to know things, even if those things are terrible.

And going back to 911 truth, do we even have the capability to make a meaningful change in this way? The 911 truth movement started with very noble goals, with the idea that if we raised enough consciousness something would change. But it didnt take long for a combination of disinfo agents and hucksters to completely overtake the movement and turn it into just another T-Shirt. You could argue that the same thing happened to Kennedy, and pretty much every conspiracy to come into the public eye. At the end of the day, the people who fight to keep the truth hidden just have infinitely more resources and skills than the people fighting for truth. Alex Jones has a multi-million dollar media empire. How do you fight that? Glenn Beck has his own god damn TV STATION. How do you fight them? Trying to rebrand Conspiracy TheoryTM is like trying to rebrand Coca-Cola.

Also, what is a Black Bloc Manarchist?

[TheBlackSheep]

. Got a chuckle out of that one. If you utilize the handy search function (top right of your window) you'll find some healthy nuggets to chew on right here within this forum. I see you're a relative newbie so it's totally understandable that you may have missed it.

As far as I could tell it seemed like that debate was not really closed among the members of this forum. It seemed like one of the most vocal detrators was JackRiddler and he even admitted that the Omidyar connection was a little valid. A lot of the criticism of Sibel Edmonds was that her prose was turgid and she was quick to confirm her own criticisms which may be valid but it certainly doesn't settle the issues she had brought up.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Zombie Glenn Beck wrote:

And really I question the usefulness of spreading conspiracy theory. Brainsturbator had a good article, that seems to have vanished, about the 9/11 truth movement that summed it up pretty well. What exactly is the end goal? Do we put the most powerful men and women on the planet on trial? What real good does all of this do outside of making us feel like were part of some enlightened elite spreading secret knowledge to the unwashed masses? I dont mean this in a dickish way, I honestly dont know the answer to this. I dont know why I keep studying Conspiracy Theory myself outside of some compulsive desire to know things, even if those things are terrible.

And going back to 911 truth, do we even have the capability to make a meaningful change in this way? The 911 truth movement started with very noble goals, with the idea that if we raised enough consciousness something would change. But it didnt take long for a combination of disinfo agents and hucksters to completely overtake the movement and turn it into just another T-Shirt. You could argue that the same thing happened to Kennedy, and pretty much every conspiracy to come into the public eye. At the end of the day, the people who fight to keep the truth hidden just have infinitely more resources and skills than the people fighting for truth. Alex Jones has a multi-million dollar media empire. How do you fight that? Glenn Beck has his own god damn TV STATION. How do you fight them? Trying to rebrand Conspiracy TheoryTM is like trying to rebrand Coca-Cola.

[Belligerent Savant]

. Got a chuckle out of that one. If you utilize the handy search function (top right of your window) you'll find some healthy nuggets to chew on right here within this forum. I see you're a relative newbie so it's totally understandable that you may have missed it.

As far as I could tell it seemed like that debate was not really closed among the members of this forum. It seemed like one of the most vocal detrators was JackRiddler and he even admitted that the Omidyar connection was a little valid. A lot of the criticism of Sibel Edmonds was that her prose was turgid and she was quick to confirm her own criticisms which may be valid but it certainly doesn't settle the issues she had brought up.

Indeed. Good points. From your initial comment it seemed you didn't catch that thread (or threads), but it seems you did.

I happen to align more with Sibel's point of view/thought processes, though my opinion is of little consequence.

[TheBlackSheep]

I notice you mention the elusive 'overarching conspiracy' above, and this is not something I subscribe to. I think it's a snark hunt and is suspiciously like the human craving for the 'theory of everything' which expresses itself through religion, but in lieu of that, through other ideas. Because it is a craving, this makes me wonder about researcher's objectivity.

I wrote a response to this but it seems to have not made it up... I'm certain that this post will not be as fluently written because I am somewhat impatient but I hope you will bare with me.

I just wanted to ask you how you viewed the Bilderberg meetings.

Also, I used the term overarching, but I did not mean to imply that all conspiracy material necessarily arises from the same source and has the same meaning. What I have issue with in this overarching sense is the way that policy seems to be introduced globally in democratic countries without the mandate coming separately from each body of citizens. The extent to which this qualifies as conspiracy or some machination of global governance is no doubt open to debate. But if there are mandates being pushed that supercede the demos in countries that proclaim to be democratic, does not that aspect of supercession warrant some kind of acknowledgement as a conspiracy, at least in that it happens behind the citizens backs.

[seemslikeadream]

you guys don't understand ...we don't need the MSM ...our government....old white men....sun revolves around the earth folks....to validate what we know....there will come a time when more people understand what is happening than not..just like with pot....gay rights ...their world is crumbling around them FAST....we don't need them....WE DON'T NEED THEM

The NYT is never going to be on our side.....the NSA is never going to be on our side...the U.S. government is never going to be on our side...old white men are NEVER going to be on our side....but they will be in their graves sooner rather than later...it's just a fact of life


there is no political solution...to our evolution


there never has been a political solution

[jakell]

I notice you mention the elusive 'overarching conspiracy' above, and this is not something I subscribe to. I think it's a snark hunt and is suspiciously like the human craving for the 'theory of everything' which expresses itself through religion, but in lieu of that, through other ideas. Because it is a craving, this makes me wonder about researcher's objectivity.

I wrote a response to this but it seems to have not made it up... I'm certain that this post will not be as fluently written because I am somewhat impatient but I hope you will bare with me.

I just wanted to ask you how you viewed the Bilderberg meetings.

Also, I used the term overarching, but I did not mean to imply that all conspiracy material necessarily arises from the same source and has the same meaning. What I have issue with in this overarching sense is the way that policy seems to be introduced globally in democratic countries without the mandate coming separately from each body of citizens. The extent to which this qualifies as conspiracy or some machination of global governance is no doubt open to debate. But if there are mandates being pushed that supercede the demos in countries that proclaim to be democratic, does not that aspect of supercession warrant some kind of acknowledgement as a conspiracy, at least in that it happens behind the citizens backs.

The Bilderberg meetings are too identifiable and public to be directly part of any conspiracy even if they were in the past, and look like a circus to me. If anything they serve as a nice diversion from other stuff, and as an Icke and Jones magnet.

As to different countries behaving in a similar fashion, I see power structures playing copycat, and watching each other to see what works. Why be creative?
If there is