by Hammer of Los » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:34 am
One other thought. There's been some funny things going on lately.
You know they seed conspiracy culture with all this right wing stuff for not one but many purposes.
Quite often one of my paranoid fears, this one not unspeakable so I can mention it, is that they are feeding the internet with divisive agitprop and populist right wing rhetoric for a reason. In some countries it almost seems like the time is ripe for someone to exploit it. Now that could be a concern, you know. The nazi's were big on that. There's a big foment going on under the surface. I am sometimes concerned as to what sort of a figure or personality might arise to take advantage of that.
Wouldn't that vast ocean of right wing flavoured conspiracy sites be very useful if you wanted to foster a populist nationalism? You see theres an inverse (obverse? reverse?) of what I like to call the Larouche Rule. That is, that any statement can be disproven if it can be found that Lyndon Larouche, cult leader and owner of a private intelligence network, has ever said anything similar. The principle is that dreadful people cannot tell the truth. Well, its a fake principle, but you get the idea. I mean, I'm quite dreadful, and I often tell the truth. The reverse is that people who tell the truth cannot be dreadful. Take Henry Makow. Dreadful. But Gloria Steinem may well have had connections to the you know who. I couldn't say. But you get people who urge you to discard the notion, rather than look into it for yourself, on the basis that Makow said it. Which on the face of it, seems reasonable. But its just a fake argument. Of course, if you found out Makow was right about Steinem, you may start to consider him less dreadful. Which would be the same error.
I worry that this is one of the purposes of the conspiracy sites. Feed them from beneath. Then get the mass media to notice, and start to report favourably on what they are saying, and you would have an enormous movement of confused, angry people, wouldn't you? The UK Daily Mail has been featuring conspiracy type material for a few years now. They did a surprisingly even handed piece on 911 for instance. They gain credibility when they mix in actual revelations of previous government perfidy. Such a mass would be ready for a strong, charismatic leader to overthrow the old order, wouldn't they?
Obviously not Ron Paul, who I actually think seems a rather nice man, on the whole. Yes, he probably was a bit racist once.
Somehow I don't think it will be Nick Griffin either.
Of course, I may have just gone right through and come out the other end of paranoid. Who knows? I apologise for my wild eyed speculation. I've been overdoing it a bit lately.
