Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[Sounder]

In line with what I've said previously on obsessions, obsessions can produce useful results. There's absolutely no reason that they have to run out of control once we gain a degree of maturity, and I would say to someone who is this way inclined to not try to banish your obsessions, but cultivate others in addition, one's that may inform and give perspective to the others.

The same goes for 'believing in something', why do we think it has to be one singular thing? Why not several things that are not strictly antithetical to each other?

Kudos for this jakell. (All-though over reliance on any belief has its pitfalls.)

I said to my wife one time; I might be obsessed.

She responded; no your not, you're just persistent.

But seriously, our obsessions can be informed by others obsessions, while at the same time confronting obsessions when they produce logic breakdowns.

[TheBlackSheep]

He certainly comes off as a dedicated and well informed propagandist. Are ideological zealots the best at that sort of work? Perhaps- but intelligent and well-trained sociopaths will give them a run for their money!

I'd say in general I am more susceptable to the sway of ideological zealots. It's probably a remnant of that desire to believe in something... no less dangerous of a trait I'm sure... problem is I'm equally scared of letting cynicism turn me completely callous.

In line with what I've said previously on obsessions, obsessions can produce useful results. There's absolutely no reason that they have to run out of control once we gain a degree of maturity, and I would say to someone who is this way inclined to not try to banish your obsessions, but cultivate others in addition, one's that may inform and give perspective to the others.

The same goes for 'believing in something', why do we think it has to be one singular thing? Why not several things that are not strictly antithetical to each other?

Sometimes I can't tell how much your comments are meant as a direct response to mine or whether you have just jumped into a separate train of musing. You quoted my statement so it leads me to think you meant it as a response to what I said... but it doesn't seem like what you are saying really contradicts what I said.

In line with what I've said previously on obsessions, obsessions can produce useful results. There's absolutely no reason that they have to run out of control once we gain a degree of maturity, and I would say to someone who is this way inclined to not try to banish your obsessions, but cultivate others in addition, one's that may inform and give perspective to the others.

The reason I'm not sure if this is meant as a direct response to me is that if it was it would seem you have taken my comment as saying there was a reason that "obsessions" have to run out of control. Whereas I was saying there was a danger in ideological idealism drawing one under the wing of ideological zealots... a danger I'm aware of and try to avoid. The notion centers around your use of the word have, meaning a necessity. Whereas I said there is a danger. There is also a danger that when going for a walk at the Cliffs of Moher one might topple into the ocean, but that doesn't mean that we have to topple into the ocean.

It is a similar issue with your other statement:

The same goes for 'believing in something', why do we think it has to be one singular thing? Why not several things that are not strictly antithetical to each other?

It appears as though you attribute to me the statement that one has to believe in something singular (has being a form of the word have, signifying a necessity), a statement which I never made.

For those reasons I am not really sure if you were responding directly to me or just going into your own musings. It can be difficult to carry on a conversation under such circumstances.

[jakell]

He certainly comes off as a dedicated and well informed propagandist. Are ideological zealots the best at that sort of work? Perhaps- but intelligent and well-trained sociopaths will give them a run for their money!

I'd say in general I am more susceptable to the sway of ideological zealots. It's probably a remnant of that desire to believe in something... no less dangerous of a trait I'm sure... problem is I'm equally scared of letting cynicism turn me completely callous.

In line with what I've said previously on obsessions, obsessions can produce useful results. There's absolutely no reason that they have to run out of control once we gain a degree of maturity, and I would say to someone who is this way inclined to not try to banish your obsessions, but cultivate others in addition, one's that may inform and give perspective to the others.

The same goes for 'believing in something', why do we think it has to be one singular thing? Why not several things that are not strictly antithetical to each other?

Sometimes I can't tell how much your comments are meant as a direct response to mine or whether you have just jumped into a separate train of musing. You quoted my statement so it leads me to think you meant it as a response to what I said... but it doesn't seem like what you are saying really contradicts what I said.

In line with what I've said previously on obsessions, obsessions can produce useful results. There's absolutely no reason that they have to run out of control once we gain a degree of maturity, and I would say to someone who is this way inclined to not try to banish your obsessions, but cultivate others in addition, one's that may inform and give perspective to the others.

The reason I'm not sure if this is meant as a direct response to me is that if it was it would seem you have taken my comment as saying there was a reason that "obsessions" have to run out of control. Whereas I was saying there was a danger in ideological idealism drawing one under the wing of ideological zealots... a danger I'm aware of and try to avoid. The notion centers around your use of the word have, meaning a necessity. Whereas I said there is a danger. There is also a danger that when going for a walk at the Cliffs of Moher one might topple into the ocean, but that doesn't mean that we have to topple into the ocean.

It is a similar issue with your other statement:

The same goes for 'believing in something', why do we think it has to be one singular thing? Why not several things that are not strictly antithetical to each other?

It appears as though you attribute to me the statement that one has to believe in something singular (has being a form of the word have, signifying a necessity), a statement which I never made.

For those reasons I am not really sure if you were responding directly to me or just going into your own musings. It can be difficult to carry on a conversation under such circumstances.

If I quote someone it means I'm definitely replying to them (like here) or I feel the text is strongly relevent to what I am saying.
Sometimes I omit a quote if my reply will be adjacent, and the text has got too large to make for comfortable reading (also like here)

Here though, I was enlarging on something I had said previously, so cannot be seen a direct reply, so it's probably best to regard it as a related musing.

If in doubt, regard everything as a musing, it simplifies things. Or ask questions.

[TheBlackSheep]

Here though, I was enlarging on something I had said previously, so cannot be seen a direct reply, so it's probably best to regard it as a related musing.

If in doubt, regard everything as a musing, it simplifies things. Or ask questions.

Okay, thanks for the response.

[jakell]

I've just been recalling one of my original musings on the subject of obsession in a forum environment. It was on my previous board, and a pretty knowledgeable holocaust denier had met his match with a fairly recent arrival. After a quite a lot of debate and wrestling he seemed to realise that knowledge alone wasn't going to serve him so switched to dubious rhetorical techniques.
One of these I remember, because he used it quite a lot after that, was to label someone who had superior knowledge to him as 'obsessed', and this was quite a clever switch... to repackage a positive as a negative, and this works because we tend to generally regard obsession as a negative thing.

What I did above was to try and re-examine the concept of obsession so that it is not regarded as entirely negative. It's not directly relevent to the current dialogue, but does touch on the internal workings of conspiracy theorists, and therefore to the forming of CT's.

If you're wondering what got me thinking of obsesssion, it seemed to lead on from your mention of ideological zealotry.

[TheBlackSheep]

I've just been recalling one of my original musings on the subject of obsession in a forum environment. It was on my previous board, and a pretty knowledgeable holocaust denier had met his match with a fairly recent arrival. After a quite a lot of debate and wrestling he seemed to realise that knowledge alone wasn't going to serve him so switched to dubious rhetorical techniques.
One of these I remember, because he used it quite a lot after that, was to label someone who had superior knowledge to him as 'obsessed', and this was quite a clever switch... to repackage a positive as a negative, and this works because we tend to generally regard obsession as a negative thing.

What I did above was to try and re-examine the concept of obsession so that it is not regarded as entirely negative. It's not directly relevent to the current dialogue, but does touch on the internal workings of conspiracy theorists, and therefore to the forming of CT's.

If you're wondering what got me thinking of obsesssion, it seemed to lead on from your mention of ideological zealotry.

Sure, I can see how obsession need not be a bad thing. It all depends how you look at things and what side you're on. "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Shakespeare wrote long ago. It is difficult to say whether the person you are referring to understood that the term "obsessed" could equally apply to him, if we are inclined to think that way. It is not necessarily the obsession that needs be the problem but what it might lead us to... and then again if we would follow Shakespeare's line of reasoning, only a problem if we think it so...

[Wombaticus Rex]

Black Sheep, thanks for that Andrew Gavin Marshall piece posted back on page 20 -- that was long, boring, and outstanding.

Good to see Mr. Marshall is still on the same path.

It would be quite interesting to get him and Joel van der Reijen and Peter Dale Scott in a room with a video camera and some good mics; each are studying the same phenomena from very different vantage points.

There is something to be said for how much the conspiracies that form our world are protected by their own inherent complexity -- "Fascism is Boring"

[jakell]

I've just been recalling one of my original musings on the subject of obsession in a forum environment. It was on my previous board, and a pretty knowledgeable holocaust denier had met his match with a fairly recent arrival. After a quite a lot of debate and wrestling he seemed to realise that knowledge alone wasn't going to serve him so switched to dubious rhetorical techniques.
One of these I remember, because he used it quite a lot after that, was to label someone who had superior knowledge to him as 'obsessed', and this was quite a clever switch... to repackage a positive as a negative, and this works because we tend to generally regard obsession as a negative thing.

What I did above was to try and re-examine the concept of obsession so that it is not regarded as entirely negative. It's not directly relevent to the current dialogue, but does touch on the internal workings of conspiracy theorists, and therefore to the forming of CT's.

If you're wondering what got me thinking of obsesssion, it seemed to lead on from your mention of ideological zealotry.

Sure, I can see how obsession need not be a bad thing. It all depends how you look at things and what side you're on. "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Shakespeare wrote long ago. It is difficult to say whether the person you are referring to understood that the term "obsessed" could equally apply to him, if we are inclined to think that way. It is not necessarily the obsession that needs be the problem but what it might lead us to... and then again if we would follow Shakespeare's line of reasoning, only a problem if we think it so...

I'm sure he did, but like I said, he was employing rhetoric, which is more about persuading onlookers than establishing truth. The idea was really to distract from his poor performance and to move onto arguing side issues (like who is and isn't obsessed), this newcomer didn't take the bait though, he was a cool customer.

It can be good for focussing and producing energy and stamina, but also needs some discipline, also known as rigour. The largest obsession producing assumption amongst conspiracy theorists that I've noticed is the search for the 'Holy Grail'** ie the one big conspiracy that trumps all the other ones, and I find that a lot of theorists seem to have this underlying assumption, even if they sometimes deny it.
Icke is a very good example of this, although I do find that he has an indefinable quality that keeps him grounded, and I wish I knew what that was.

**The 'Holy Grail is a very good mythic example of the line between interest and obsession.

[semper occultus]

It would be quite interesting to get him and Joel van der Reijen and Peter Dale Scott in a room with a video camera and some good mics; each are studying the same phenomena from very different vantage points.

...age being one of them - AGM was a sort of student intern at Global Research wasn't he...?

[jakell]

........There is something to be said for how much the conspiracies that form our world are protected by their own inherent complexity -- "Fascism is Boring"

Sort of what I was saying back here:

We have been seeing it here, how a smokescreen is used to create boredom and indifference in casual observers, and these are the real hurdles of our age. We've (mostly) got past the ones that grabbed our attention in obviously existential ways, now we have to tackle the real killers, the mind numbing techniques that are deceptively effective when a society reaches it's decadent stage.

[TheBlackSheep]

The largest obsession producing assumption amongst conspiracy theorists that I've noticed is the search for the 'Holy Grail'** ie the one big conspiracy that trumps all the other ones, and I find that a lot of theorists seem to have this underlying assumption, even if they sometimes deny it.

I wonder how you might feel about a project like a 'history of conspiracy' or 'hidden history'. There might also be ways that conspiracy elements are connected through a common history (that of planet earth), as well as connected influences (in the sense of ideology or otherwise), without necessitating a single hand or single group behind all conspiracy.

An example I might take which I haven't really researched but kind of jumps into my mind is around the French revolution, which was at least in part sparked by certain philosophers (in part)... and it could be said though the heralding forces behind the French revolution called for equality, they brought in a reign of tyranny, whether by design or not... and then there is afterward certain philosophers (Thomas Paine, for example) who defended the French revolution and also influenced the founding fathers/American revolution... and a similar influence can be found for ideas that had influenced the French revolution and the founding fathers, such as the writing of Montequieu...

I suppose what I just stated above might not really be called a conspiracy at all, though depending what elements are looked at in these events, for example if you followed these ideas in these two books (surely among others)

http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Bro ... 70R474BV25

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fire-Minds-Men- ... nds+of+men

What might result could be considered something of a 'conspiracy theory' surely... (I chose those two books above because of their sources, one being printed by a University Press and the other being written by the Librarian of the United states congress)...

What I am suggesting is not that everything need be connected, but that a project like 'Conspiratorial History' might be considered a "grand project" or the like.

Opinions?

[jakell]

The largest obsession producing assumption amongst conspiracy theorists that I've noticed is the search for the 'Holy Grail'** ie the one big conspiracy that trumps all the other ones, and I find that a lot of theorists seem to have this underlying assumption, even if they sometimes deny it.

I wonder how you might feel about a project like a 'history of conspiracy' or 'hidden history'. There might also be ways that conspiracy elements are connected through a common history (that of planet earth), as well as connected influences (in the sense of ideology or otherwise), without necessitating a single hand or single group behind all conspiracy.

An example I might take which I haven't really researched but kind of jumps into my mind is around the French revolution, which was at least in part sparked by certain philosophers (in part)... and it could be said though the heralding forces behind the French revolution called for equality, they brought in a reign of tyranny, whether by design or not... and then there is afterward certain philosophers (Thomas Paine, for example) who defended the French revolution and also influenced the founding fathers/American revolution... and a similar influence can be found for ideas that had influenced the French revolution and the founding fathers, such as the writing of Montequieu...

I suppose what I just stated above might not really be called a conspiracy at all, though depending what elements are looked at in these events, for example if you followed these ideas in these two books (surely among others)

http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Bro ... 70R474BV25

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fire-Minds-Men- ... nds+of+men

What might result could be considered something of a 'conspiracy theory' surely... (I chose those two books above because of their sources, one being printed by a University Press and the other being written by the Librarian of the United states congress)...

What I am suggesting is not that everything need be connected, but that a project like 'Conspiratorial History' might be considered a "grand project" or the like.

Opinions?

True, it's something that looks like a conspiracy because of patterns that emerge, and the human mind loves patterns. Patterns also emerge though due underlying forces or tendencies, and are not necessarily down to conscious intentions (ie conspiracies), and to my mind some of these are the virtually constant** elements of human habit/nature that I was discussing with Sounder earlier..

You may have noticed that one of my aims is to try to separate out as much of the half-baked bilge that surrounds the CT scene as I can, and I do this for one selfish reason, that I simply can't process it, to this end I'm constantly looking for ways of filtering this, so if I can find something that seems to have a non-conspiratorial impetus (as above) then I jump on it, possibly too eagerly, but I can always come back to these things.

There is another more up to date reason for me wanting to clear the rubble, and it's possibly not a popular one. As our societies collapse, along with their current power structures, it's possible that a large amount of conspiracy research done over the last few decades will become an irrelevent historical curiosity which has lost it's context, not many CTers are going to like that.

**As I've said before though, not fixed, but virtually constant within out current timeframe.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I am betting this has already been introduced in the thread, Bale is a fairly eminent practitioner, but if not: I present for the general edification of all participants a very eloquent and helpful essay, "Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics."

Enjoy: http://www.miis.edu/media/view/18981/or ... nspire.pdf

ABSTRACT Scholars and intellectuals often fail to pay sufficient attention to the
historical and political importance of conspiratorial politics, that is, real-world covert
and clandestine activities. This is primarily because they rarely make an effort to
distinguish conceptually between such activities, which are a regular if not
omnipresent feature of national and international politics, and bogus ‘conspiracy
theories’, elaborate fantasies that purport to show that various sinister, powerful
groups with evil intentions, operating behind the scenes, are secretly controlling the
course of world events. Bale’s purpose is to provide a clear analytical distinction
between actual conspiratorial politics and ‘conspiracy theories’ in the pejorative
sense of that term, and to suggest that research methods appropriate to investigating
and analysing the former have long been available. In a world full of secret services,
surreptitious pressure groups, criminal cartels and terrorist organizations, academics
can no longer afford to ignore bona fide conspiratorial activities of various types,
which have often had considerable historical significance in the past and are likely to
continue to exert an impact on events in the future.

KEYWORDS clandestine operations, conspiracy theories, covert operations, fringe
ideas, historical causation, political extremism, political paranoia, popular delusions,
religious extremism, secret services, secret societies

[TheBlackSheep]

True, it's something that looks like a conspiracy because of patterns that emerge, and the human mind loves patterns. Patterns also emerge though due underlying forces or tendencies, and are not necessarily down to conscious intentions (ie conspiracies), and to my mind some of these are the virtually constant** elements of human habit/nature that I was discussing with Sounder earlier..

You may have noticed that one of my aims is to try to separate out as much of the half-baked bilge that surrounds the CT scene as I can, and I do this for one selfish reason, that I simply can't process it, to this end I'm constantly looking for ways of filtering this, so if I can find something that seems to have a non-conspiratorial impetus (as above) then I jump on it, possibly too eagerly, but I can always come back to these things.

There is another more up to date reason for me wanting to clear the rubble, and it's possibly not a popular one. As our societies collapse, along with their current power structures, it's possible that a large amount of conspiracy research done over the last few decades will become an irrelevent historical curiosity which has lost it's context, not many CTers are going to like that.

**As I've said before though, not fixed, but virtually constant within out current timeframe.

I'm going to sort of go off on a bit of my own musings here but it is directly connected to what we have just been saying.

I guess when I would consider writing/working out a 'conspiracy theory', I am not really so concerned about pinpointing conspiracies per se. I am definitely interested in conspiracy to the degree that I am interested in history (contemporary or past) and there is definitely an element of conspiracy to history. The reason I find that element important is because, very often there is quite a large influence looming in the shadows that we are completely unaware of... beyond that I am also interested in historical points of influence that are maybe not conspiracy but are not really acknowledged for one reason or another, perhaps just neglect.... like what I was trying to get at in the post above in regards to the French revolution and the American one...

So in other words, for me 'conspiracy theory' is not really for the purpose of conspiracy theory, but just filling in the gaps of history to get a clearer idea of where we come from and how things have gotten to be this way. In this sense I might clash some with conspiracy theorists formally as well as mainstream historians.

That being said... I sort of feel unable to formulate what I want to say coherently... but I think there is sort of 'non-conspiracy' hidden/unacknowledged history that plays a key role in historical development. It's not really conspiracy formally, but I am sure that it could be deemed conspiracy if someone was ideologically opposed to what you were expressing... For example, returning to my French/American revolution example... In The Federalist and the writings of the founding fathers of the united states there are definitely certain anti-democratic sentiments expressed... if that was tied into what I was getting at before to create this sort of subversive image of history, it is sure to be labelled conspiracy theory by some people if only because they will feel like what is being put forward is an attack on good old fashion american values.

What I'm trying to get at here is that, I might confound the concept conspiracy theory in ways that it perhaps shouldn't really be... but in another sense there might be good reasons for thinking of it that way as well... for example because it helps tie in other blatantly conspiratorial elements, also because maybe I am interested in a type of historical analysis that is somewhat far from the mainstream so that it doesn't really have a formal name or place in the culture at this point... which is why I might call it hidden history, though that name could be miscontrued as well, as the trends might be unacknowledged for quite innocent reasons... maybe just unacknowledged history would be better, more neutral at least...

Also, somewhat unrelated, but related to the idea I was getting at... how would we classify the work of Mark Curtis:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Affairs- ... ark+curtis

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Web-Of-Deceit-B ... ark+curtis

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unpeople-Britai ... ark+curtis

That might help to understand what I'm getting at... It's again sort of 'unacknowledged history', though not formally "conspiracy theory"...

True, it's something that looks like a conspiracy because of patterns that emerge, and the human mind loves patterns. Patterns also emerge though due underlying forces or tendencies,

Also, you're not implying that pattern recognition is a bad thing right? (I'm not saying you are)... because I would definitely see the ability to recognize patterns as being a quality of human intelligence. I've actually worked hard to hone my ability to recognize patterns.

[TheBlackSheep]

I am betting this has already been introduced in the thread, Bale is a fairly eminent practitioner, but if not: I present for the general edification of all participants a very eloquent and helpful essay, "Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics."

Enjoy: http://www.miis.edu/media/view/18981/or ... nspire.pdf

Great, thank you for that, it's actually very relevant to what we are currently discussing.