Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[American Dream]

This kind of analysis and critique is to me, on point- and sorely needed:


http://libcom.org/library/occupied-cons ... -theorists

Occupied with conspiracies? The Occupy Movement, Populist Anti-Elitism, and the Conspiracy Theorists



Spencer Sunshine discusses the infiltration of the Occupy movement by conspiracy theorists.

All progressive social movements have dark sides, but some are more prone to them than others. Occupy Wall Street and its spin-offs, with their populist, anti-elitist discourse (“We Are the 99%”) and focus on finance capital, have already attracted all kinds of unsavory friends: antisemites, David Duke and White Nationalists, Oath Keepers, Tea Partiers, and followers of David Icke, Lyndon Larouche, and the Zeitgeist movement (see glossary below).

On one hand, there is nothing particularly new about this. The anti-globalization movement was plagued with these problems as well.(1) This was sometimes confusing to radicals who saw that movement as essentially Left-wing and anti-capitalist; when the radicals said “globalization,” they really meant something like the “highest stage of capitalism,” and so from their perspective, by opposing one they were opposing the other. The radicals often saw the progressives in the movement as sharing this same vision, only in an “incomplete way” —and that they only needed a little push (usually by a cop’s baton) to see that capitalism could not be reformed, and instead had to be abolished.

But for numerous others, “globalization” did not mean capitalism. Just as for the radicals, it functioned as a codeword: for some it meant finance capital (as opposed to industrial capital), while for others it meant the regime of a global elite constructing their “New World Order.” And either or both might also have meant the traditional Jewish conspiracy’s supposed global domination and control of the banking system. Whether they realized it or not, the many anti-authoritarians who praised this “movement of movements” as being based solely on organizational structure, with no litmus test for political inclusion, put out a big welcome sign for these dodgy folks. And in that door came all kinds of things, from Pat Buchanan to Troy Southgate.

But still, the anti-globalization movement in the United States was initiated by an anarchist / progressive coalition that in many ways controlled the content and discourse of it, giving it a classic Popular Front feel—the same way the old Communist Parties controlled large progressive coalitions for many decades. In contrast to this, Occupy Wall Street immediately took on a purely populist approach.

There are different ways to understand and oppose capitalism. There is a structural critique, usually associated with Marxism but often shared by anarchism, which seeks to understand the internal dynamics of capital and sees it as a system, beyond the control of any particular person or group. There is also an ethical critique, popular among religious groups and pacifists, which focuses less on the “whys” of capital and instead concentrates on its effects, looking at how it produces vast differences in wealth while creating misery, scarcity, and unemployment for most of the world. Last, there is a populist vision, which can transcend Left and Right. Populists have a narrative in which the “elites” are opposed to the “people.”

On one hand, this can be seem as a vague kind of socialism which counterposes the everyday worker against the truly rich. But it also lacks any kind of specific analysis of class or other social differences—the 99% are treated as one homogenous body. Usually the “people” are seen as the “nation,” and these 1% elites are perceived to be acting against the nation’s interests. From a radical, anti-capitalist viewpoint, this narrative may be wrong and “incomplete,” but by itself is not dangerous. In fact, many progressive and even socialist political movements have been based on it.

But the populist narrative is also an integral part of the political views of conspiracy theorists, far Right activists, and antisemites. For antisemites, the elites are the Jews; for David Icke, the elites are the reptilians; for nationalists, they are members of minority ethnic, racial, or religious groups; for others, they are the “globalists,” the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, the Federal Reserve, etc. All of these various conspiracy theories also tend to blend in and borrow from each other. Additionally, the focus on “Wall Street” also has specific appeal to those who see the elite as represented by finance capital, a particular obsession of the antisemites, Larouchites, followers of David Icke, etc. “The Rothschilds” are the favorite stand-in codeword of choice to refer to the supposed Jewish control of the banking system.

Much has already been said about the Occupy movement’s refusal to elucidate its demands. On one hand, this has been useful in mobilizing a diverse group of people who can project what they want to see in this movement—anarchists, Marxists, liberals, Greens, progressive religious practitioners, etc. On the other hand, this has been useful in mobilizing a diverse group of people who can project what they want to see in this movement—Ron Paulists, libertarians, antisemites, followers of David Icke, Zeitgeist movement folks, Larouchites, Tea Partiers, White Nationalists, and others. The discourse about the “99%” (after all, these Right-wingers and conspiracy mongers are probably a far greater proportion of the actual 99% than are anarchists and Marxists), along with the Occupy movement’s refusal to set itself on a firm political footing and correspondingly to place limitations on involvement by certain political actors, has created a welcoming situation for these noxious political elements to join.

So far, the overwhelmingly progressive nature of many of these Occupations has kept this element at bay. But it is only the weight of the numbers of the progressive participants that has done this. There are neither organizational structures within the Occupy movement, nor are there conceptual approaches that it is based on, that act to ensure this remains the case. So it is not unreasonable to expect that, especially as participation declines, some of the Occupations will be taken over by folks from these far Right and conspiratorial perspectives. All participants might rightly see themselves as part of the 99%. The real divisive question will then be, who do they think the 1% are?


Notes

(1) At least one Left group had quit the anti-globalization movement in 1998 because of antisemitism and far Right affiliations; a prominent deep-pocketed funder had close links to a neo-fascist think tank; and neo-Nazi figures both praised the Seattle demonstrations and attempted to glean off the anti-globalization movement after words. Things got so out of hand that a whole new brand of decentralized crypto-fascism crystallized and attempted an entryist maneuver. See my “Re-branding Fascism: National-Anarchism” for more background on this.


Spencer Sunshine is researcher, journalist, and activist who lives in Brooklyn, New York. His writings on the far Right include “Re-branding Fascism: National-Anarchists”. He is currently writing a book about the theoretical implications of the transition from classical to contemporary anarchism.



POLITICAL GLOSSARY:

Buchanan, Pat (US): Paleconservative politician who has run several high-profile campaigns for President. A Christian nationalist, he opposes globalization and relies on racist, antisemitic, and homophobic worldviews.

Duke, David (US): Media-savvy founder of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. He was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives as a Republican in 1990 but lost his bid for US Congress. Duke stresses antisemitic theories about Jewish control of the Federal Reserve and the banking system, and has endorsed the Occupy movement.

finance capital vs industrial capital: Populism often depends on the producerist narrative, which pits “unproductive capital” against “productive” capital. Unproductive capital refers to industries which are based on the manipulation of abstractions (banking), versus the production of physical objects (factory work). The Nazis relied on this distinction for their “National Socialism.”

Icke, David (UK): A former Green Party-leader-turned-conspiracy theorist who blends numerous different conspiratorial ideas together, including antisemitic ideas. He claims that world leaders are Reptilian aliens who appear to be humans, and feed off negative human energy. He has followers on both the Left and Right.

Larouche, Lyndon (US): A former Trotskyist who founded a Left-wing cult around himself and then quickly transformed it into a far Right political organization with a focus on intelligence gathering. He is an antisemitic nationalist who attacks finance capital and globalization.

Oath Keepers (US): Right-wing organization of current and former military and law enforcement members. Descended from the Militia movement, they pledge to disobey certain federal orders that are perceived to violate the Constitution.

Paul, Ron (US): Republican Congressman from Texas who is currently seeking to be his party’s 2012 presidential candidate. He has libertarian economics and isolationist politics; he opposed the US invasion of Iraq but also wants to withdraw from the UN. Favors drug legalization and dismantling the Federal Reserve. Has support from some White Nationalists as well as some progressives.

Southgate, Troy (UK): Former National Front activist who founded National-Anarchism, a form of decentralized crypto-fascism which attempted to infiltrate the anti-globalization movement.

Tea Party (US): A Right-wing populist movement that has affected the US political landscape. It has no clear focus but a mass base and deep funding from wealthy Rightists. Islamophobes, ‘Birthers’ (who claim that President Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim), and White Nationalists can be found in these circles.

White Nationalists: A catch-all term for various far Right politics whose central concern is the “preservation” of people of European descent (excluding Jews), who are seen as comprising a “nation.” This includes white supremacists, white separatists, and those who work inside parliamentary systems but advocate for “white rights.”

Zeitgeist movement: Technocratic movement which also transcends the traditional Left / Right divide. Founded by Peter Joseph, it originates in a series of movies which blended various conspiracy theories together. Chapters exist around the world.


Originally published in Shift Magazine

[Sounder]

It's a shame (for the real thing) that progressive-ism has become associated in general consciousness with globalism.

This may have something to do with resent election results in Europe. (Yeah, lets not talk about it.) At least Greece has a left, sensible enough to oppose the 'project'.

Something is driving more people into far right arms, I dare say, its not the 'appeal' of fascism, rather it is a yearning to get back at least some kind of control in life.

Regular folk are not feeling much regard coming from champagne socialist folk these days.

[minime]

Something is driving more people into far right arms, I dare say, its not the 'appeal' of fascism, rather it is a yearning to get back at least some kind of control in life.

I blame the incessant fear- and hate-mongering of the left and the right equally...

though not all of the left and all of the right.

[American Dream]

]http://www.social-ecology.org/2012/09/seven-left-myths-about-capitalism/

Seven Left Myths about Capitalism


G.B. Taylor

Occupy Wall Street has renewed hope for a left political renaissance by challenging economic inequality and the neoliberal discourse that legitimated it, and reintroducing the word capitalism to political debate. The “greed” of the “1%,” counterpoised to the hardworking, rule-abiding 99%, has emerged as the dominant political frame of OWS. Rhetorically powerful, the slogan’s elegant simplicity conceals as much as it reveals. The language of “corruption,” the betrayal of Main Street by parasitic Wall Street bankers, and nationalist appeals to “take America back” all express a deep confusion as to the nature of the current crisis. This often results in a highly personalized moral critique of capitalism rather than a systemic one.

The crisis wracking capitalism today cannot be understood as simply the evil actions of greedy bankers and the 1%. In fact, as Max Weber pointed out, unlike the ostentatious opulence of earlier economic forms like feudalism, capitalism actually has tendencies which check greed – for example how intra-capitalist competition forces firms to save and reinvest. Thus the logic of states wielding coercive external power in human form as armies and police is quite different from that of capitalism, wherein power is more difficult to pinpoint or assign personal agency to. Conflating these two modes of power leads to very different political demands and outcomes. Capitalist power acts not only or even primarily on us from outside, but through us, as worker and capitalist alike are caught up in an impersonal competitive imperative that would quickly bankrupt any turncoat bankers or CEOs who might suddenly take Occupy’s message to heart.

With this in mind, I would like to examine seven myths about capitalism commonly found on the left that offer an incomplete critique of capitalism that points in the direction of insufficient reform or towards reactionary rather than emancipatory forms of anti-capitalism.

Greed

Why is decrying greed problematic? Because focusing on greed personalizes what is a structural problem, making it individual rather than systemic in nature. Although there are certainly greedy people, this is not a moral failing or “human nature,’ but people acting quite rationally within the structures of capitalism. Our present age of mergers and megacorporations is no accident; they are the winners within a capitalism driven by a grow-or-die imperative fueled by never ending competition. Within capitalism there is little space to act “ethically,” as institutionalized competition forces everyone – from owners looking to cut costs, workers seeking to maximize gain, and consumers hunting for the best price – to act immorally. By subjecting them to economic calculation, capitalism makes a mockery of our deepest ethical values. An analysis emphasizing greed points towards changing morality, when what is really needed is to get rid of the institutions that incentivize such behavior.

Corruption

Another familiar charge in the current crisis is corruption, that greed drove bankers to corruption, breaking their own rules and wrecking the economy in the process. But capitalism obeys only one fundamental rule: generate ever more profit or perish. The language of corruption implies exception, a situation wherein something has gone wrong; but the problem is rather the rule: the ordinary workings of capitalism. Although there are always scandals where outright deception, bribery, or insider trading occur, the reality is that very few laws were broken in creating the current crisis. Calls for getting money out of politics only get us to the point of nations with strict election finance laws, like England, where politicians still govern according to the needs of capital. Corruption is not the problem.

Economic Nationalism

Strong nationalist currents have also surfaced in Occupy Wall Street. Whether it’s purple armbands that signify the mixing of the red white and blue of the flag, or the language of “Take America Back,” there’s a strong desire for a return to normalcy, defined as a middle class standard of living. But the idea that the state, like “the economy,” is a neutral and unified entity that works for the good of all is a falsehood: the nation-state never protected anyone from capitalism, but rather provides for its smooth functioning. Likewise, there was no “Golden Era” when capitalism somehow respected national borders in its search for new exploitable resources, labor, markets, and profit. At best it struck a compromise with a small percentage of mostly white workers in the West for a short time post WWII. America’s post-war economic dominance has faded; international competition has brought the austerity it once imposed on the third world home. In addition to reinforcing the state, such economic nationalism displays a callous disregard for people in other nations, as well as immigrants; a poignant reminder why rightwing libertarian elements were prominent in the early days of Occupy. But we don’t want to go back to an American Dream that was built largely on the backs of people of color both in the US and abroad. Capitalism has never worked for “the people,” American or otherwise, and never will.

Finance Critique

Another line of argument identifies finance as the culprit, contrasting the speculative greed of Wall Street to an honest and hardworking Main Street which produces tangible goods and services. It is claimed that Wall Street is a casino economy that doesn’t produce anything useful, has no loyalty to American workers, and is run by amoral CEOs who make astounding salaries. But this distinction between a real and unreal economy is a fiction, Main Street operates according to the same logic as Wall Street on a smaller scale, and may even finance parts of it. But more fundamentally, to single out banking misses the point: all capitalist enterprise exists to produce profit, not meet human needs.[1]

Finance as a sector has certainly grown in size and importance, but this must be contextualized within a larger trajectory of capitalist development – the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) economy became central to the neoliberal project because, aided by technological development, it was a convenient and low-cost strategy for dealing with the crisis of capital accumulation in the 1970s – finding new ways to extract profit in the face of international competition, automation, and the gains of workers’ movements.[2] But Wall Street is no more or less parasitic than any other sector of the economy. This populist analysis blames opulence, money, and abstract exchange while ignoring the equally problematic nature of good old fashioned exploitative wage labor, or how the two are mutually intertwined. Furthermore, both lines of argument must also cope with a present reality wherein to even be exploited as waged labor is increasingly the luxurious privilege of a dwindling few. The irony is that workers today appear to need capitalism more than it needs them.

Size/Anti-Corporatism

The American left has often substituted a critique of corporations in place of a critique of capitalism. And it’s easy to beat up corporate giants like WalMart, Coca Cola, Bank of America, whose global operations obviously do much harm. However, the problem is not a quantitative one of size or scale, but rather qualitative. Capitalism is a social logic which impels small companies to act the same way, and sometimes even worse. Large corporations, because of their size, reach, visibility, and superior resources, are often in a better position to be unionized or otherwise pressured to pay better and offer benefits smaller businesses simply can’t offer.[3]

In a conversation during the early days of OWS, activist “preacher” Reverend Billy expressed exactly this critique, stating that Brooklyn bodegas (corner stores) posed an alternative to “the 1%” economy because they build community – you might know the person behind the counter or be able to momentarily leave your kid there while running an errand. Yet these same bodegas are often family businesses employing family members who are un- or underpaid, work long hours and lack vacations or health care. OWS has suggested moving money out of big banks like Bank of America and Chase and into smaller credit unions. Unfortunately, it turns out many credit unions are engaged in the same practices as larger banks, only at a local level.[4]

Focusing on large corporations also has the tendency to reduce politics to aesthetics: absent a critique of the common logic behind large and small firms, politics becomes a search for authenticity too easily channeled into consumption and individualism. Size is not the problem; the only real difference between WalMart and Etsy is taste and market share.

Conspiracy

These various partial critiques easily combine to produce conspiratorial views of capitalism. In this view the problem is the result of a secret, hidden cabal of evildoers – we just need to rip off the façade and – voilà! – liberation. This narrative of redemptive revelation is seductive, but it ignores the systemic nature of capitalism. Marx stated that capitalism operates “behind our backs,” appearing natural and rendering exploitation invisible so that when problems are identified, conspiratorial perspectives become attractive. But the problem is not the secret machinations of the Federal Reserve, bankers, Jews, or the trilateral commission but the fundamentally irrational logic of capitalism.[5]

Alternatives and the Myth of Autonomy

Faced with the ugliness of capitalism, understandably people often look to alternatives such as cooperative enterprises, community supported agriculture, farmers’ markets, local currencies and barter networks. These projects often provide important and desirable things like higher quality products, a sense of community, or increased self-management. However, their limitations are too often overlooked or simply wished away. Embedded in the same capitalist logic and subjected to the same market pressures as traditional firms, they can easily become indistinguishable from entrepreneurship with noble intentions. But you can’t small business your way out of capitalism. The workers’ cooperative of Mondragon in Spain is an instructive example. Forced to compete with traditional firms, their avowed political aims like higher wages, longer vacations, or environmental considerations become a competitive disadvantage in relation to firms lacking such moral scruples. The result is that Mondragon increasingly resembles a typical capitalist enterprise, compelled to make similar decisions only with fewer bosses to blame.

Such projects are often oblivious to the long history of attempts to economically move away from capitalism, or to restrain it politically. In France, 1981 Francois Mitterand tried to implement a moderate socialist program and was rewarded with massive capital flight, he quickly changed course. In Greece, it was socialists who presided over post-crisis austerity. The “market” also recently punished France for its insolence in electing a socialist president. If even powerful nation-states are powerless to control capital, how can small enterprises expect to fare any better?

In their zeal to transcend the many horrors of capitalism, many of these strategies seek to jump outside of it. But “autonomy” from capitalism is even more impossible than autonomy from the state it has captured. Limited by the competitive pressures of a market economy and private ownership, every social gain won by alternative economic projects or reform-minded politicians constitutes a competitive disadvantage against capitalist firms, or nations, lacking such scruples. The result is typically liquidation or a more self-managed form of capitalism not so distant from the quintessential entrepreneurial dream of “being your own boss.” However, acknowledging Adorno’s insight “There is no right life in the wrong one” is not to admit defeat but instead to demand a politics which squarely confronts the structural limitations – and opportunities – posed by the totality of capitalism.

Why Does Our Analysis of Capitalism Matter?

Having an accurate understanding of capitalism is not simply a nitpicky or academic concern; it is important because different analyses of capitalism lead in very different political directions, not all of which are emancipatory. Unfortunately, some of the critiques put forth by Occupy today unwittingly echo slogans from National Socialism – to “take back” the economy from a disloyal and parasitic class, make the economy work for the “right” national group, etc… The left has no monopoly on critiques of capitalism, and given its present historical weakness there is great danger in the rise of reactionary forms of anticapitalism. Around the world today right wing movements and parties tap into economic discontent and channel it into nationalism, blaming foreigners, welfare recipients, and “disloyal” corporations. One common nationalist demand is to make capitalism work “once again” for the native-born citizens of their respective countries. But such nationalist and fascist critiques of capitalism are false solutions in that they misunderstand the nature of capitalism and pose authoritarian solutions that destroy freedom.

The documentary film “Inside Job” provides a good example of this constellation of false critiques, and the problematic political solutions they imply. It portrays the economic crisis as a classic case of a few “bad apples” whose greed and bad morals, established through their use of cocaine and prostitutes, also happen to ruin the economy. The film even goes so far as to biologize the problem, showing brain scans that allegedly show how excited bankers get when handling money! Its final panoramic shot of the Statue of Liberty suggests a patriotic return to economic nationalism, naively utopian in the face of a globalized capitalist economy that has long since rendered even such mythical notions quaint.

Many historical factors sustain today’s fuzzy thinking about capitalism. One is the legacy of the Cold War: the collapse of “actually existing socialism” and resulting “End of History” consensus only strengthened a hysterical anticommunism that made talking about capitalism, let alone socialism or communism, almost impossible in the United States. Systematic repression from McCarthyism to COINTELPRO also contributed to the rise of a left which largely neglected political economy for 40 years, while more robust critiques and history of capitalism languished in ever-dwindling sectarian Marxist circles. American traditions of pluralism, pragmatism, and anti-intellectualism also work against a deeper theoretical understanding of capitalism. This also sheds light on the current popularity of prefigurative politics. While the desire to model the world we want in the here and now is an admirable one, it also holds out the seductive fiction that we don’t need politics, analysis, or organization – we can lead by example, until so many people join that the world changes. Thus prefigurative politics fills the vacuum of left ideas, allowing populists and anarchists to converge in practical matters while carefully avoiding addressing questions or demands which will inevitably entail fragmenting the perceived unity of the 99% based on how they understand the nature of the problem and preferred solution.

The Need for Radical Thinking

After years of neglect, Left prescriptions on economy have become vague, opportunistic, lacking vision. Many simply nod along to recycled Keynesian solutions of those like Paul Krugman, which fail to explain why social democracy was steamrolled by neoliberalism in the first place. The economic crisis of 2008 revealed that capitalism is only in “crisis” when it hurts capital. But if the fundamental issue is to make the economy serve human need rather than the other way around, then why stop halfway? Capitalism certainly hasn’t – the most “successful” revolution in terms of transforming the globe in the last 40 years has been the market utopianism of neoliberalism. We must also think big: we don’t just want a bigger slice, but the whole damn bakery!

In this regard, we should learn from the capitalists, who ironically have adopted traditional left demands more ably than the left itself has. Automation has made fewer jobs necessary, and everyone knows work sucks anyway, so why should the left valorize toil and beg for useless busywork jobs? Instead of chastising the 1% for their lives of idle luxury, we should be demanding it for all. And sadly it has been the capitalists, not workers, who have shown they have no nation. We can follow suit with a militantly cosmopolitan internationalism that has no more use for borders than transnational corporations does. The “crisis” has revealed that what used to be deemed impossible is in fact a matter of political will, as the state has bailed out banks and nationalized the auto industry while leaving people to fend for themselves. The result is a perverse socialism in reverse: socializing all the risk while privatizing all the wealth. Our task is simple: the current crisis has shown that a society organized around production for the accumulation of profit doesn’t work – even according to its own standards. It’s up to us to reverse this communism for capital, making our vast productive capacity serve humans, not the other way around.

[1] Ross Wolff, “Concerning Greed and Romantic Anticapitalist nostalgia.” http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... lism-past/. The Charnel House.

[2] David Harvey. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

[3] Doug Henwood. “Small is Not Beautiful.” National Post (Canada), September 23, 2003. http://lbo-news.com/2011/11/26/from-the ... ness-myth/

[4] Henwood, Doug. “Moving Money (revisited).” Left Business Observer. November 8th, 2011. http://lbo-news.com/2011/11/08/moving-money-revisited/

[5] Spencer Sunshine. “Occupied with Conspiracies? The Occupy Movement, Populist Anti-Elitism, and the Conspiracy Theorists.” Shift Magazine, November 2011. http://shiftmag.co.uk/?p=512

[JackRiddler]

Long as you're copy-pasting that article again, here is my quicky response from the last time

JackRiddler » Wed May 21, 2014 10:04 am

There's a lot to this mode of critique but most of its practitioners are seeking their own simplistic terminal point, where they can pat themselves on the back and sleep free of imagined rightist taint.

Right now I've the energy and time just for one fragment from G.B. Taylor's article:

Greed

Why is decrying greed problematic? Because focusing on greed personalizes what is a structural problem, making it individual rather than systemic in nature. Although there are certainly greedy people, this is not a moral failing or “human nature,’ but people acting quite rationally within the structures of capitalism...

Why is decrying greed necessary? Because the system propagates not just a highly irrational "rational" practice but a justifying ideology of greed. Under the system, those individuals tends to advance into positions of management and into the ruling class who live out their greed in the most ruthless, self-fanatic ways. The most extreme and often criminal cases of such persons, such as the Internet and Silicon Valley sharks and top corporate CEOs generally, are celebrated as exemplary "successes" and "philanthropists" and presented as practically the only worthy role-models for all children.

This is not simply to condemn them for their moral failings -- although a dose of that is appropriate -- but to expose the systemic dynamics at work around greed. "Greed is good" (and its fantasy complement of perpetual growth) is one of the implicit capitalist recruitment pitches for a veritable army of committed destroyer-narcissists: human-resource gurus, useless gadget modifiers, top sellers, smiling controllers, false benefactors and petty tyrants on all levels. The spirit needs to be counteracted in the same way a fever must be broken, even if the fever is not the cause of the disease.

Within capitalism there is little space to act “ethically,” as institutionalized competition forces everyone – from owners looking to cut costs, workers seeking to maximize gain, and consumers hunting for the best price – to act immorally.

From among "everyone," again, it also advances the worst, those who act immorally with aplomb and find countless ways to make a virtue of their immoralities; the author recognizes a system of incentive and punishment, and should therefore also understand incentive systems are also systems of selection into positions of power and authority. It is imperative to thematize and confront how this value system is also sold to the vast majority through the pervasive ideologies of consumerism, wealth worship and "winner"-ism. Otherwise there will be no effective popular movement against the system (in the absence of apocalyptic crises, and even then the call will be for a restoration of the happier consumer paradise -- as was the real problem with Occupy)!

In seeking to move more people to recognize, learn and reject the actual system, rather than its many diversionary imagos, exposing its moral wrongs is essential. Damn right the system engenders corruption and this is wrong, even if "corruption" is also constructed into a problem by the bogus transparency advocates who only ever see it as a means of imposing state-corporate "governance" on underdeveloped nations and underground milieus, and thus hide how the legal, legit system itself is the primary factor in producing this hell on earth.

George Lakoff has a lot more to offer practically speaking than this dry, faux-structural, mass exoneration of the decision-makers at all levels. If no one is responsible, then no one is capable of making a difference for or against the system.

I don't have time to take on all seven points in detail--the silliest of which is perhaps in the misunderstanding of the most powerful tendency of all capital under capitalism, which is towards financialization--but they're generally simplistic and delivered with an unearned air of superior unction. Regardless of who is speaking and who is audience, the feeling I get with this article is of what people complain about in "mansplaining."

[American Dream]

A real synthesis might mention greed but would clearly connect it to social institutions also. The personal is political- and by the same token the political is also personal.

This need have nothing to do with insipid pseudo-spiritualities ala David Icke, Thrive, and all others of that general sort. Neither some kind of muddy "neither right nor left" philosophy that somehow keeps falling inexorably towards the extreme right.

Rigorous Intuition- as expressed in various here iterations by Jeff Wells- is a great ideal but as a collectivity, I don't think we're even coming close yet...

[Searcher08]

How is the overarching discussion different from the desire to create a tick-box ideology of Rigorous Intuition (perhaps called... Wellsists)?
The whole endeavour reminds me of the Precedurification of Everything.

A teacher is observed telling fun, attention-capturing maths stories in the classroom.
The students end up achieving superb results.
An educationalist decides to proceduralise this.
She decides to create a mandatory teaching procedure that specifies:

1 The number of humour instances per teaching hour required
2 How the teachers will be evaluated on the number of humour teaching points per lesson.
3 A list of the acceptable stories for permitted humour
4 A lists of proscribed subjects for teaching stories
5 A form, to be used for every lesson, detailing the Allowed Story Number (ASN) and Pupil Story Response Number (PSRN) must be completed and sent to Central Targets on a daily basis
6 If a parent objects to a story, the Parents Story Youth Objection Procedure (PSYOP) must be used.

This particular mapping process is extremely insidious. It can take elements of exceptional performance and turn them into imposed, lifeless conformance.

This is not to say that the wonderful thought provoking, insight weaving, reflection engaging strategies that are used in a conscious / sub-conscious interplay by Jeff at his best are 'off-limits' .
Just that 'Codification' - as pure procedure - is a linear, sequential analysis-based, humour-free, exceptions-averse and non-emergent process. And Jeff's approach to R.I. is, I contend, 'no such animal'.


Perhaps what we need is a greatly expanded vetting process for joining the forum;
a list of people and writers whose work is 'problematic';
a clear statement from each forum member on where they stand on *all* issues,
these statements that should be evaluated by other members and voted on
problematic members should be given education and the chance to recant or expelled from the Forum and their sketchy posts removed.
That there should be a retro-active evaluation of where problematic members stand against these criteria
If any member has a problem with another members conformance to Wellist ideology, they have a duty, for the Collectivity, of bringing these sketchy statements to the attention of the authorities.

In order for us to create a Rigourous and Radical Conspiracy Theory, we must liquidate the virtual vipers and running dog forces of anti-Wellsism in our midst.

[seemslikeadream]

the climate around here lately destroys any and all possibilities of new people coming here ...who would want to post at RI but the seasoned callous veterans who are so used to being trashed for their "unworthy views" they don't give a shit or hold the novel idea that fascism is not the one true evil in the world


RI is so blessed to have Searcher here......the one who words it well .....the dude abides

have you now or have you ever been a member of the ....place your conspiracy theory here....?


the place born on conspiracies now can not abide

[American Dream]

How is the overarching discussion different from the desire to create a tick-box ideology of Rigorous Intuition (perhaps called... Wellsists)?
The whole endeavour reminds me of the Precedurification of Everything.

A teacher is observed telling fun, attention-capturing maths stories in the classroom.
The students end up achieving superb results.
An educationalist decides to proceduralise this.
She decides to create a mandatory teaching procedure that specifies:

1 The number of humour instances per teaching hour required
2 How the teachers will be evaluated on the number of humour teaching points per lesson.
3 A list of the acceptable stories for permitted humour
4 A lists of proscribed subjects for teaching stories
5 A form, to be used for every lesson, detailing the Allowed Story Number (ASN) and Pupil Story Response Number (PSRN) must be completed and sent to Central Targets on a daily basis
6 If a parent objects to a story, the Parents Story Youth Objection Procedure (PSYOP) must be used.

This particular mapping process is extremely insidious. It can take elements of exceptional performance and turn them into imposed, lifeless conformance.

This is not to say that the wonderful thought provoking, insight weaving, reflection engaging strategies that are used in a conscious / sub-conscious interplay by Jeff at his best are 'off-limits' .
Just that 'Codification' - as pure procedure - is a linear, sequential analysis-based, humour-free, exceptions-averse and non-emergent process. And Jeff's approach to R.I. is, I contend, 'no such animal'.


Perhaps what we need is a greatly expanded vetting process for joining the forum;
a list of people and writers whose work is 'problematic';
a clear statement from each forum member on where they stand on *all* issues,
these statements that should be evaluated by other members and voted on
problematic members should be given education and the chance to recant or expelled from the Forum and their sketchy posts removed.
That there should be a retro-active evaluation of where problematic members stand against these criteria
If any member has a problem with another members conformance to Wellist ideology, they have a duty, for the Collectivity, of bringing these sketchy statements to the attention of the authorities.

In order for us to create a Rigourous and Radical Conspiracy Theory, we must liquidate the virtual vipers and running dog forces of anti-Wellsism in our midst.

This is a bizarre and incomprehensible interpretation of what has been said. How do you get from what is given to the sort of spin which you are putting on things? Surely you must be adding that spin on purpose?

[Searcher08]

Thank you, slad.

I see an attempt at this proceduralisation process happening here. This type of codification process is fine for mapping the business process of crankshaft repair in an auto-shop. For deep politics and paraculture, no. Because it misses out (amongest many things), this:

At length, sick with longing for those glittering sunset streets and cryptical hill lanes among ancient tiled roofs, nor able sleeping or waking to drive them from his mind, Carter resolved to go with bold entreaty whither no man had gone before, and dare the icy deserts through the dark to where unknown Kadath, veiled in cloud and crowned with unimagined stars, holds secret and nocturnal the onyx castle of the Great Ones.

H. P. Lovecraft's novella "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath

[Searcher08]

How is the overarching discussion different from the desire to create a tick-box ideology of Rigorous Intuition (perhaps called... Wellsists)?
The whole endeavour reminds me of the Precedurification of Everything.

A teacher is observed telling fun, attention-capturing maths stories in the classroom.
The students end up achieving superb results.
An educationalist decides to proceduralise this.
She decides to create a mandatory teaching procedure that specifies:

1 The number of humour instances per teaching hour required
2 How the teachers will be evaluated on the number of humour teaching points per lesson.
3 A list of the acceptable stories for permitted humour
4 A lists of proscribed subjects for teaching stories
5 A form, to be used for every lesson, detailing the Allowed Story Number (ASN) and Pupil Story Response Number (PSRN) must be completed and sent to Central Targets on a daily basis
6 If a parent objects to a story, the Parents Story Youth Objection Procedure (PSYOP) must be used.

This particular mapping process is extremely insidious. It can take elements of exceptional performance and turn them into imposed, lifeless conformance.

This is not to say that the wonderful thought provoking, insight weaving, reflection engaging strategies that are used in a conscious / sub-conscious interplay by Jeff at his best are 'off-limits' .
Just that 'Codification' - as pure procedure - is a linear, sequential analysis-based, humour-free, exceptions-averse and non-emergent process. And Jeff's approach to R.I. is, I contend, 'no such animal'.


Perhaps what we need is a greatly expanded vetting process for joining the forum;
a list of people and writers whose work is 'problematic';
a clear statement from each forum member on where they stand on *all* issues,
these statements that should be evaluated by other members and voted on
problematic members should be given education and the chance to recant or expelled from the Forum and their sketchy posts removed.
That there should be a retro-active evaluation of where problematic members stand against these criteria
If any member has a problem with another members conformance to Wellist ideology, they have a duty, for the Collectivity, of bringing these sketchy statements to the attention of the authorities.

In order for us to create a Rigourous and Radical Conspiracy Theory, we must liquidate the virtual vipers and running dog forces of anti-Wellsism in our midst.

This is a bizarre and incomprehensible interpretation of what has been said. How do you get from what is given to the sort of spin which you are putting on things? Surely you must be adding that spin on purpose?

Perhaps you can say what in particular about it you find bizarre?
And what do you not understand?

I see your mode of engagement as similar to the educationalist - and attempting to create a similar shift, so that everyone will be operating within your personally approved frames. I came to this conclusion through re-reading this thread.

I have a very different view on what constitutes 'rigourous intuition'.

I find your framing re what I said as 'putting a spin on things' nonsensical (what does that even MEAN in this context?) and merely ignoring a point of view you oppose. Saying 'I am adding that spin on purpose' presupposes your previous framing and does not engage with what I said, just with your own framing of what I said.

Perhaps you can demonstrate to me how your worldview and assumptions have changed as a result of this thread of hundreds of posts and many months duration?

[American Dream]

How is the overarching discussion different from the desire to create a tick-box ideology of Rigorous Intuition (perhaps called... Wellsists)?
The whole endeavour reminds me of the Precedurification of Everything.

A teacher is observed telling fun, attention-capturing maths stories in the classroom.
The students end up achieving superb results.
An educationalist decides to proceduralise this.
She decides to create a mandatory teaching procedure that specifies:

1 The number of humour instances per teaching hour required
2 How the teachers will be evaluated on the number of humour teaching points per lesson.
3 A list of the acceptable stories for permitted humour
4 A lists of proscribed subjects for teaching stories
5 A form, to be used for every lesson, detailing the Allowed Story Number (ASN) and Pupil Story Response Number (PSRN) must be completed and sent to Central Targets on a daily basis
6 If a parent objects to a story, the Parents Story Youth Objection Procedure (PSYOP) must be used.

This particular mapping process is extremely insidious. It can take elements of exceptional performance and turn them into imposed, lifeless conformance.

This is not to say that the wonderful thought provoking, insight weaving, reflection engaging strategies that are used in a conscious / sub-conscious interplay by Jeff at his best are 'off-limits' .
Just that 'Codification' - as pure procedure - is a linear, sequential analysis-based, humour-free, exceptions-averse and non-emergent process. And Jeff's approach to R.I. is, I contend, 'no such animal'.


Perhaps what we need is a greatly expanded vetting process for joining the forum;
a list of people and writers whose work is 'problematic';
a clear statement from each forum member on where they stand on *all* issues,
these statements that should be evaluated by other members and voted on
problematic members should be given education and the chance to recant or expelled from the Forum and their sketchy posts removed.
That there should be a retro-active evaluation of where problematic members stand against these criteria
If any member has a problem with another members conformance to Wellist ideology, they have a duty, for the Collectivity, of bringing these sketchy statements to the attention of the authorities.

In order for us to create a Rigourous and Radical Conspiracy Theory, we must liquidate the virtual vipers and running dog forces of anti-Wellsism in our midst.

This is a bizarre and incomprehensible interpretation of what has been said. How do you get from what is given to the sort of spin which you are putting on things? Surely you must be adding that spin on purpose?

Perhaps you can say what in particular about it you find bizarre?
And what do you not understand?

I see your mode of engagement as similar to the educationalist - and attempting to create a similar shift, so that everyone will be operating within your personally approved frames. I came to this conclusion through re-reading this thread.

I have a very different view on what constitutes 'rigourous intuition'.

I find your framing re what I said as 'putting a spin on things' nonsensical (what does that even MEAN in this context?) and merely ignoring a point of view you oppose. Saying 'I am adding that spin on purpose' presupposes your previous framing and does not engage with what I said, just with your own framing of what I said.

Perhaps you can demonstrate to me how your worldview and assumptions have changed as a result of this thread of hundreds of posts and many months duration?

I don't consider you to be operating in good faith, nor operating under what I take as basic principles of evidence and logic, so there is no reason at all to engage further.

I'm done with you. Putting you back on ignore.

[Searcher08]

How is the overarching discussion different from the desire to create a tick-box ideology of Rigorous Intuition (perhaps called... Wellsists)?
The whole endeavour reminds me of the Precedurification of Everything.

A teacher is observed telling fun, attention-capturing maths stories in the classroom.
The students end up achieving superb results.
An educationalist decides to proceduralise this.
She decides to create a mandatory teaching procedure that specifies:

1 The number of humour instances per teaching hour required
2 How the teachers will be evaluated on the number of humour teaching points per lesson.
3 A list of the acceptable stories for permitted humour
4 A lists of proscribed subjects for teaching stories
5 A form, to be used for every lesson, detailing the Allowed Story Number (ASN) and Pupil Story Response Number (PSRN) must be completed and sent to Central Targets on a daily basis
6 If a parent objects to a story, the Parents Story Youth Objection Procedure (PSYOP) must be used.

This particular mapping process is extremely insidious. It can take elements of exceptional performance and turn them into imposed, lifeless conformance.

This is not to say that the wonderful thought provoking, insight weaving, reflection engaging strategies that are used in a conscious / sub-conscious interplay by Jeff at his best are 'off-limits' .
Just that 'Codification' - as pure procedure - is a linear, sequential analysis-based, humour-free, exceptions-averse and non-emergent process. And Jeff's approach to R.I. is, I contend, 'no such animal'.


Perhaps what we need is a greatly expanded vetting process for joining the forum;
a list of people and writers whose work is 'problematic';
a clear statement from each forum member on where they stand on *all* issues,
these statements that should be evaluated by other members and voted on
problematic members should be given education and the chance to recant or expelled from the Forum and their sketchy posts removed.
That there should be a retro-active evaluation of where problematic members stand against these criteria
If any member has a problem with another members conformance to Wellist ideology, they have a duty, for the Collectivity, of bringing these sketchy statements to the attention of the authorities.

In order for us to create a Rigourous and Radical Conspiracy Theory, we must liquidate the virtual vipers and running dog forces of anti-Wellsism in our midst.

This is a bizarre and incomprehensible interpretation of what has been said. How do you get from what is given to the sort of spin which you are putting on things? Surely you must be adding that spin on purpose?

Perhaps you can say what in particular about it you find bizarre?
And what do you not understand?

I see your mode of engagement as similar to the educationalist - and attempting to create a similar shift, so that everyone will be operating within your personally approved frames. I came to this conclusion through re-reading this thread.

I have a very different view on what constitutes 'rigourous intuition'.

I find your framing re what I said as 'putting a spin on things' nonsensical (what does that even MEAN in this context?) and merely ignoring a point of view you oppose. Saying 'I am adding that spin on purpose' presupposes your previous framing and does not engage with what I said, just with your own framing of what I said.

Perhaps you can demonstrate to me how your worldview and assumptions have changed as a result of this thread of hundreds of posts and many months duration?

I don't consider you to be operating in good faith, nor operating under what I take as basic principles of evidence and logic, so there is no reason at all to engage further.

I'm done with you. Putting you back on ignore.

I'm not a big Jungian, but have to say your comments are a classic in projection.

You use words like 'logic' and 'evidence' in the same way as pseudo-skeptics, as a flag to be wrapped in, rather than as useful tools for exploring the world.
When questioned more specifically about what they actually mean in this context, they suddenly have pressing engagements elsewhere. I would challenge your use of the phrase 'engage further', as that pre-supposes that you already have engaged, which is self-evidently untrue, at least at my end.
You have a basic principle of running away from having your epistemology challenged.

The unanswered question:

Perhaps you can demonstrate to me how your worldview and assumptions have changed as a result of this thread of hundreds of posts and many months duration?

[KeenInsight]

"Conspiracy Theory," the phrase was coined by the CIA when investigations were reaching their height into JFK's murder. I believe it started showing up prominently during the work of Jim Garrison. The word was disseminated in order to discredit legitimate investigation at that time, including by now what is known to be hundreds of suspicious deaths of eyewitnesses, including FBI agents that were to testify weeks before their hearings.

Its a word that has stuck ever since in popular culture, often jumbled in with stuff from people with rather imaginative minds.

"Conspiracy" itself, or rather conspiracies, are generally what Humankind is capable of, and has been capable of ever since the dawn of civilization, lust for power, and so on. Conspiracies of crimes that took place hundreds or even thousands of years before modern times are now acknowledged by historians/archaeologists that were in fact conspiracies, most often assassinations or other political intrigue, etc.

In my view, to deny that conspiracies are real is basically to deny history itself and to deny what humans are capable of.

The phrase for real investigated work into conspiracy, whatever it may be from a mere crime of two plotting to rob something, to state power plotting to illegally overthrow another countries government, or heinous plots to assassinate or obfuscate information, should be known as "conspiracy analyzing." More often than not, such people that take real conspiracy crimes seriously are vindicated anyways after the fact.

From the famous Memphis court case on MLK, to the vindication of the anti-war movement that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started based on lies as they were told, to the vindication of those that warned Libya was not a humanitarian war, to the vindication that the u.s. and nato were illegally involved in overthrowing a ukrainian government and their complicit crimes in training neo-nazi's. It all adds up. And hundreds of years from now the history books will attempt to discuss the truth.

[American Dream]

The phrase for real investigated work into conspiracy, whatever it may be from a mere crime of two plotting to rob something, to state power plotting to illegally overthrow another countries government, or heinous plots to assassinate or obfuscate information, should be known as "conspiracy analyzing."

I can fully endorse the use of this terminology- makes complete sense.