Conspiracy a Religion?

[brekin]

I was considering last night how Conspiracy, like most belief systems, at its worst could be seen as a secularized religion.

It seems most people have a "awakening" or "conversion" experience which can come from simply reading some of the "teachings" or an event such as Waco or 9/11 where innocents are slaughtered for some unseen reasons.

Usually their are a rotating host of prophets or saviours who know the Truth, try to share it with the people and are shunned, persecuted, tortured and/or martyred for their attempts.

Identifying with those who are shunned or martryed, and also knowing the Truth, the adherent starts to seperate the world into believers and non-believers of "what is really going on." Also they realize how most of the world operates under an illusion and unseen forces, most of them dark and evil, possibly not quite human, are really running things.

Liberation can only come by spreading the Truth and converting enough of the blind populace through the teachings. But the non-believing world is slow to see the Truth, so the adherent starts to withdraw and detach from it bit by bit. Still being "of the world, but not in it."

There is an End Times, millenial apocalyptic component where day by day the invisible hand manipulates world events and people to bring an end to society, humanity, the world etc by enslaving the world, destroying the environment, etc

Conspiracy I think can speak to our need to believe that there is a plan, everything to have a reason, for causality, destiny even if it is malevolent. People are willing to subsitute a benevolent God for one intent on our destruction as long as nothing is random or coincidental. Someone is responsible for every radio ad, movie poster, suicide, car accident, etc. Conspiracy creates a Universe with intent. Creates responsiblility and blame for anything bad that happens.

Conspiracy can even morph from a monotheistic outlook to an animist one. Soon not only human events and people are part of the Conspiracy but so is matter itself.

Like I said, I think Conspiracy at its worst becomes a Religion. But I have to wonder having said all this, at its best, could it be a connection with the divine?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Someone is responsible for every radio ad, movie poster, suicide, car accident, etc. Conspiracy creates a Universe with intent.

The only thing worse than over-ascribing intent is remaining ignorant of military-intelligence covert tactics and how easy it is for those with more knowledge and resources to deceive, control, and exploit those with less.

Power is a religion.
Technology is a religion.
Social Darwinism is a religion.
....these all combine into a secular super-religion called 'Fascism' once intentionally manufactured by Adolph Hitler and which lives on today.

There is a renewed effort to puff up the stereotype of the irrational paranoid "conspiracy theorist" while more conspiracies are uncovered in history and as they happen.

That awful '9/11 Cultwatch' site is a typical example of an effort to discredit people who find information that is dangerous to power.

But if you want to discuss the cult or 'religious' aspect of belief/knowledge psychology you should look at those who actually conspire in business and military-intelligence.

Read ex-CIA whistleblower Victor Marchetti's 1974 book-
'The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence.'

[IanEye]

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

[nomo]

[brekin]

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:

The only thing worse than over-ascribing intent is remaining ignorant of military-intelligence covert tactics and how easy it is for those with more knowledge and resources to deceive, control, and exploit those with less.

But I wonder if it is worse? Isn't over-ascribing intent a form of ignorance to?
Doesn't this active ignorance play into the hands of those who would exploit others just as the passive ignorance of not knowing?

It would be great if Conspiracy theory had more of the rigor in other fields, because unfortunately the stereotype of the irrational paranoid conspiracy theorist exists. Granted it probably takes great discipline to be a rational paranoid.

[orz]

It's not a religion, I think calling it a fandom fits the bill better in most cases.

[teamdaemon]

Granted it probably takes great discipline to be a rational paranoid.

I am a firm believer in the benefits of constructive paranoia. I would rather be a little more stressed from being aware of what is going on around me than be in jail, or in the military, or in debt to a bunch of psychotic nazis.

[IanEye]

Granted it probably takes great discipline to be a rational paranoid.

I am a firm believer in the benefits of constructive paranoia. I would rather be a little more stressed from being aware of what is going on around me than be in jail, or in the military, or in debt to a bunch of psychotic nazis.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=138330#138330

"How's your Paranoia, Brian?" - Bob Dylan

et - I am sure the thought has crossed your mind, but reading what you have assembled here, the whole thing smacks to me of the 60 Minutes Bush TANG thing. Where the whole thing is a set-up and every aspect is controlled by the same PuppetMaster.

Meaning, Mr. Maher knew the hecklers would be there, knew their "agenda", because it was from the same Pro Wrestling script he was reading from.

The DU bloggers unsuing comments? Paid for by the same people, much as the "hey, Rather's lying because the font wasn't around then, blah blah" comments were paid for.

Again, perhaps my mind is too steeped in paranoia. But I frequent a blog where I am supposed to give actual credence to the idea that Sidney Aaron Chayefsky was a CIA stooge and all of the talent and effort that went into making the film "Network" was merely to provide a distraction from an article in Rolling Stone about Mockingbird. All of this in '77, Carter's first year in office.

The same Rolling Stone that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, ran full page ads in all of the Trade mags stating "Perception - Reality".

Under the Perception title was a pic of a bong toting hippie. Under the Reality title was a pic of Reagan at the mic. Below all of this was the copy that informed the potential buyers of ad space in Rolling stone that, despite many people's perception of the magazine, the reality was the majority of their readers voted for Reagan. So, "Hey, corporate America!! Don't hesitate to buy ad space here and shill your razor blades and deodorant!!"

In the end, the "Truth" of the matter is a synthesis. RS readers did smoke a lot of pot and a lot of them voted for Reagan. Just ask Ann Coulter the next time you see her at a RatDog concert. Especially if the venue is Bohemian Grove, I hear those tickets are real hard to come by.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that as a faithful RI reader, I try to be as rigorous as I can be. How deep can I go when I ponder the whole "Politically Incorrect" heckler flap? As deep as I go when I become wary of someone who wants me to cry foul at "Network" in order to support a magazine that in '85, Reagan's first year of his second term, was actually trying to get me to consider Michael J Fox, Don Johnson, and Bruce Willis as viable musical alternatives. There they were on the cover of RS, month in, month out, with guitars in their hands.

At which point, I told Rolling Stone to go fuck itself and bought something called SPIN, a magazine put out by a pornographer's son which, in the first issue I bought, had an article by Geza X which taught me point by point how to "DIY" make my own music and put it out myself. I should also be honest and say that I had never heard of the Stooge's "Fun House" album until I read an article in SPIN by Henry Rollins that was so laudatory of the album I had to check it out myself.

These days when I happen to pick up an issue of SPIN I usually say to myself, "this magazine sucks now", and Rollins is doing voice over gigs for GM. such is Life. Hi - Ho.

Evil forces infiltrate spaces constantly. Sometimes they even infiltrate spaces they already "own". Be rigorous. Be intuitive.

The well you drank fresh water from a year ago may now be poisoned.

Things fall apart.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=138359#138359

well, I hope the way I started off my last posting with the Dylan quote was a bit of a clue to my approach. Paranoia can be a tool.

Sometimes it is useful to start off full blown paranoid and then rachet off the flow until it is at a comfortable level. Tastes may vary on where that comfort level lies. I put forth that the entire "Politically Incorrect" event was a piece of theater, including the DU comments. Feel free to ratchet back the valve to your own personal taste, I won't be offended.

There is a moment in Stone's "JFK" where Oswald is on a talk show.

Irate Anti-Castro Cuban: You Sir, are a Communist.

Pro-Castro Oswald: I am not a Communist. I am a Marxist-Leninist.

Irate Anti-Castro Cuban: What is the difference?

And indeed, a US citizen who pre 11-22-63 was willing to see a difference between a Communist and a Marxist-Leninist may have been less willing to split hairs once this Marxist-Leninist Oswald had used violence to forward his agenda. Was this why Oswald was on the talk show in the first place? To help forward the idea post 11-22-63 that all of them Commies are the same?

Back to "Politically Incorrect". For me the parts that seem fake are:

The very fact that it does take CBS security so long to deal with the hecklers. It is like the classic move in pro wrestling where the ref is distracted and it takes him forever to finally turn around and see that the "bad guy" is doing all of the underhanded dirty moves on the "good guy" and it is only when the "good guy" has had enough and strikes back that the ref turns around and sees the "good guy" behaving badly

ref: Hey now! none of that!! we run a clean game around here. Really, Good Guy, i expected better from you. tsk tsk

audience: but, but!!

And Stein's line:

“I was only allowed two guests, so things should be OK after this.”

is a great line. But it is a little too cute for me, a little too self aware and Post Modern. Consider it a Shakespearean "aside" to the audience, perhaps.

I do believe that there are still real people out there willing to cause a ruckus. i believe some of those people read at DU. I believe some forces want to try and sell those real people on the idea that ruckus causing isn't really worth it and none of your peers will applaud your actions anyway, so why bother?

In the end, perhaps I have been too in the thrall of Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK". Mr. Scott believes that by studying 11-22-63, one can gain insight into 09-11-01. It is an interesting approach but it can also make a student such as myself get into a state of "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues"

Met a girl called lola and I took her back to my place
Feelin guilty, feelin scared, hidden cameras everywhere
Stop! hold on. stay in control

Girl, I want you here with me
But Im really not as cool as Id like to be
cause theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little yellow man in my head
And theres a true blue inside of me
That keeps stoppin me, touchin ya, watchin ya, lovin ya

Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.

Well I fell asleep, then I woke feelin kinda queer
Lola looked at me and said, ooh you look so weird.
She said, man, theres really something wrong with you.
One day youre gonna self-destruct.
Youre up, youre down, I cant work you out
You get a good thing goin then you blow yourself out.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer. silly boy ya self-destroyer

Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
Youre so insecure you self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(here it goes again)
Paranoia, the destroyer

Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer

Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(heres to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(hey hey, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this)

Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this.)

[compared2what?]

IanEye, who loves the sound of his own voice wrote

You're not the only one. I mean who loves the sound of your voice. Not that I'm arguing that the other reading isn't also true. But what I meant was....Oh, fuck it. Writing is hard. I will let a better communicator than I make the point for me as he brings it home.

Just gimme your hands!

[JackRiddler]

Anti-conspiracy is just as much a religion. Conspiracy is a buzz word.

I don't care. My terms are deep politics and parapolitics.

My slogan is, "I want to know."

[Eldritch]

That was a thought provoking post, Brekin.

Many people do become dogmatic about their beliefs—the subset of those of us who perceive conspiracies is no different. (Not that all of us are dogmatic, but some are.) So, I think, a "religious" lens is an interesting one through which to consider the subject of "conspiracy"—and the emerging conspiracy movement.

The "religious" lens is also an important warning—and an insightful one.

For the most part, I tend to see the emerging "conspiracy culture" in a similar way as I might imagine the culture of emerging Copernican heliocentrism to have been like. Heliocentrism was, at best, only a sort of penultimate answer to the ultimate structure of things—and, while accurate in many respects, was most certainly not the final answer. But many leaped onto the bandwagon of the Copernican revolution expecting a final answer about the unified structure of things because they recognized, rightly, that the myth of the Earth as the center of the universe was a fatally flawed, even dead idea. (Even though the Church kept "breathing life" into the corpse.)

Similarly, those who have begun to recognize the FACT that powerful—and sinister—forces are conspiring against the good of the common man and towards their own singular self-interests (or what they at least believe to be their own self interests) are only on the "penultimate stage" of the reality of conspiracy, at best.

Unfortunately, some people get stuck there—and stuck on a few details that are, finally, erroneous.

It seems only natural that, emerging out of the blindness of a worldview that denies "conspiracy" as a common fact of political life, so-called "conspiracy theorists" would err, even as their overall direction is sound.

So I see the overall "conspiracy" movement (for wont of a better term) as a process—and a very unfinished one.

Those who cannot yet see the brightness of the noonday sun can be forgiven, I think, because—as far as the insight that there are vast conspiracies is concerned—it is still morning.

There are vast conspiracies. But I think those of us who see that would do well to remember that few of us—probably none—possess the final answer as to exactly how all of them "fit together."

In other words, we shouldn't get "religious" about it.

My opinions only, of course. And your mileage will almost certainly vary.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Anti-conspiracy is just as much a religion. Conspiracy is a buzz word.

I don't care. My terms are deep politics and parapolitics.

My slogan is, "I want to know."

"I want to know."

...beat me to it..

[compared2what?]

Anti-conspiracy is just as much a religion. Conspiracy is a buzz word.

I don't care. My terms are deep politics and parapolitics.

My slogan is, "I want to know."

"I want to know."

...beat me to it..

Seconded. Here's the thing. I am 100% with JackR on terms and attitude. And I am 97% sure that I mean the same thing he does when he says he wants to know, based on inferential reading of his other posts.

But as part of the ongoing War on Unreason, I'd like to make of point of asking: Want to know what, exactly, and in the interests of then doing what?

For example, I want to know things that could be introduced in a court of law as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that crimes had been committed. And I want those same things to be widely known by others. Because I want impeachment, and a concomitant restoration of a tolerable approximation of the rule of law.

But wishing don't make it so, and neither does knowing, by itself. I asked some questions aimed at emphasizing that down on the 22-year-old arms-dealer thread, too.

Impeachment and concomitant etc. are my goals. My hopes for achieving them are not high, but I am not yet at the point where I am ready to rule it out entirely. However, it would take an organized, multi-lateral group effort to achieve it. Infinite discussion of other interesting and important but ultimately unknowable truths is a wonderful thing, and I'm all for it. But in political terms, it is the equivalent of invading Iraq and not planning for the aftermath.

I already said that, but I am going to keep repeating it until it gets through. Dull but necessary.

So: What do you want to know, and why?

Please think seriously about your answer whether you plan on posting it or not. They are serious questions.

[Jeff]

Perhaps anything in which we inordinately invest our identities can become our religion. Then we can't allow the legitimacy of a challenge to it, because it risks ourselves.

[brekin]

JackRiddler wrote:
Anti-conspiracy is just as much a religion. Conspiracy is a buzz word.

I don't care. My terms are deep politics and parapolitics.

My slogan is, "I want to know."


"I want to know."

...beat me to it..

I want to know to. But sometimes I examine how much my wanting to know, is really a needing to know. (a needing to believe in a greater narrative.) Could this wanting to know create an appetite?

I want to know.--> I need to know.--->I know.----> I believe.---> I want to believe--->I need to believe

Sometimes I think Conspiracy theory can be a self perpetuating double bind of desiring mystery and wanting simplistic answers.

I'm not advocating not pursuing the truth, or that some, or many conspiracy theories couldn't be valid. It's that it is very seductive to want to believe in more conspiratorial reasons for events then less sexy reasons. Like a good creation myth, a good conspiracy theory has it's own logic that is almost predigested for you.

Like early man who believed that the God's had a stake in every mundane occurrence and were the origin of everything. It is almost disappointing when the nefarious powers that be aren't behind something. It's like having a slightly impotent God, it challenges your faith.