"Please don't riot, it's just what they want"

[SpineyNorman]

btw Frogwoman - the EDL "Eurabia" conspiracy isn't so much a conspiracy in that they would claim that it is all there in the Koran and therefore fairly open.

Btw taffboy - the nazi jewish conspiracy isn't so much a conspiracy in that they would claim it is all there in the protocols and therefore fairly open.

 

[butchersapron]

The far right are often obsessed with the Occult, paganism, atlantis, UFOs, secret societies, you name it.

It does not remotely follow that such fields of research are a gateway for the far right, or that people who persue them are of the far right. It does follow that the far right might linger, hoping to recruit. From the consparanoids I know I don't think they would get very far at all.

Butchers - that's right -there's some whacko stuff on CoastToCoast. So what? Does that mean someone has to believe it all? I don't listen to it randomly, I just pick out an hour or so that looks interesting or far out. Again, so what? It certainly aint "filth" (to think you chided me for using that word, or are you being ironic?)

I'm afraid that those fairy stories throw the entire content of the site and the shows into doubt. It throws their evidence gathering techniques into doubt. It throws their method of critical interrogation of the evidence into doubt. It throws the conclusions based on the previous two processes into the most serious doubt. So yes, they're all tainted. And in a really annoying way, this actually mirrors the dynamic that non-conspiracy types point out the conspiracy people have set in motion as regards the undermining of critical voices and dissent towards political authority and so on - guilt by association.

As for the filth thing, i chided you for inappropriate use if i remember rightly (i,e england fans and so on). I think it's pretty appropriate for the ideological anti-semites who sit so comfortably in the conspiracy family.

As for the stuff in the reply to FG, i think that if, as you say, people trying to recruit for the far right in the conspiracy scene (and i don't accept what appears to be your default position that conspiracy types are default not far-right, that they need to be recruited or drawn towards it by external intervention) that this suggest that they've had some previous success and wish to replicate it, and thta this success would be based on an accurate identification of a common worldview, a common interest and a common weakness. That's exactly how gateways work (still without accepting the nice split you made between conspiracy and the far right).

I can see why you're reluctant to accept this, but when this sort of thing appears on Ickes site without challenge and to all intents and purposes just part of the normal mental furniture then i cannot see how you manage it: Christianity and Hitler, the Jew's Best Friend:

Here is the truth. Christianity and Hitler were both tools of the Jews. If not completely Jewish created, they were captured and manipulated by the Jews. And, with both cases, the Jews used both Hitler and Christianity to blame themselves and persecute themselves. Ever notice how the Jews have gotten more power from Christianity and Hitler than anything else?

 

[Yata]

Conspiracy theory isn't an alternative to racist ideology - it very often compliments it. I know some EDLers are that way inclined - for example "Snowy" is now into... the protocols! And there's a an Islamophobic conspiracy theory very similar to the protocols in the "Eurabia" nonsense that the likes of Breivik believe. Just like the Nazi interpretation of the protocols, this one has European national elites in league with "the enemy". Conspiracy theory, by its very nature, leads us to blame individuals - or more often groups of people, identifiable by ethnicity, race, religion or political views (and most often a combination thereof) - for social ills, war, crisis, instability and what have you, rather than structures and institutions, so it's almost as if it was custom designed to engender bigotry - oh, hang on... most of it was.

Find me a single Nazi, a single fascist (and I mean genuine fascists and Nazis) who don't subscribe to some sort of conspiracy theory. In fact even most EDLers now seem to believe that the EU is either working in concert with Islamists or is using them to "attack western judeo christian culture".

Pointing racists in the direction of conspiraloon stuff won't cure their racism - it's more likely in fact to confirm their prejudices.

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to move someone away from this kind of thinking - I've been successful only once, and the friend I managed it with occasionally posts on this board as it happens, though he certainly wasn't ever a racist and he fortunately never got to the stage where he thought the protocols were valid and he never thought that there should be a "debate" on the historical accuracy of the holocaust. The only way you can move people away from racist ideology, or away from conspiratorial nuttiness, is to talk to them about real, verifiable history and to help them find a proper framework through which to look at politics and the world around them - one that explains why we're in the state we are in, why they have such little control over their lives, why they feel so isolated, why those at the top find it so much easier to increase their power while the rest of us see either no improvement in our prospects or worse - without the need for a shadowy group of humanoid lizards to make sense of it.

I never got that far "down the rabbit hole" as Icke would say. I remember being depressed and wanting the world to feel as shit as me, to be as cruel a place as possible. So I could justify my agraphobia I suppose. Throw in childhood fantasys of a fucked up world with riot police, mohawks and cyberpunk awesomeness- Suddenly Icke/Jones future of microchip implants, police state and devil worshipping aliens from Mars goes from wishful thinking into "its definitely gonna happen" and yeah I actually thought he meant V-style aliens not Jews but I mean come on, as someone has pointed out already theres loads of anti-semitism allover the forums and nobodys doing anything about it. It used to disappoint me seeing that on the forums, at first I made excuses to myself for the mods for not deleting things but you really REALLY can't ignore anti-semitism like that, you can't be indifferent to it and you definitely should never excuse it. I think its obvious where Icke stands on that- 6 hour talks on symbolism and secret societys littered with buzzwords like "zionist", finishing up by telling an exhausted audience that the group responsible are all lizards, one phrase coined over and over being "join the dots". I'm pretty sure he encourages it.

As much as I hate to admit it, people like me are probably the bread and butter of shyt like this- depressed, isolated, out of touch with reality. The real world is boring and depressing, cult leaders like Icke make things seem more interesting. More importantly they make you feel informed and progressive by feeding you easy to digest newsletters and soundbites, sociopathic "spirituality" and a touch of overpriced snake oil on the side so you feel like you're doing something to improve your shitty situation by rubbing silver on your tits.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

A few quick things Butchers - that "Christianity and Hitler" thing looks rancic, and another reminder of why I don't go to Icke's sites anymore. Someone else said it upthread that there is nothing about "energy" et al that loads of other new agers don't say. I guess it is that sort of thing that I have been giving more attention to. Are the methods of Coast to Coast entirely stringent along orthodox lines? Nope. What a lot of them do is take demonstrated unexplained fact and indulge in conjecture to explain it, for example Cremo or Tellinger regarding various discovered and documented ancient artefacts and sites. The "ancient astronauts" hypothesis is common currency among them, along with alot of Exo politics stuff. The amount of documentation surrounding the latter is also pretty striking. Alot of people won't take stuff as true till someone in the establishment tells them it is so, even though the establishment has a record of getting it wrong or even lying. The orthodoxies of one generation are so often blown away by the next, why people cling to them is a bit of an odd one.I try and simoutaneously believe everything and nothing. I think most regular coast listeners would be open minded like that. I would also note that conspiracism is riddled with it's own orthodoxies.

I still maintain that a conspiracism is not somehow quasi synonymous with far right, I know way too many conspiracists of a liberal / left tilt to justify that.

Butchers - you chided me for over use of the "filth" word rather than a specific use. I would never call England fans that as a homogenous group.

Yata

"As much as I hate to admit it, people like me are probably the bread and butter of shyt like this- depressed, isolated, out of touch with reality. The real world is boring and depressing, cult leaders like Icke make things seem more interesting"

This is quite a classic counter-conspiracy arguement, essentially relying on cod psychology - "you just want to make the world more interesting" doesn't make any given theory true or untrue by itself.

One could just as easily argue that counter conspiracists - "just don't want to face that sometimes dodgy people do dodgy things in a clandestine fashion"

 

[butchersapron]

A few quick things Butchers - that "Christianity and Hitler" thing looks rancic, and another reminder of why I don't go to Icke's sites anymore. Someone else said it upthread that there is nothing about "energy" et al that loads of other new agers don't say. I guess it is that sort of thing that I have been giving more attention to. Are the methods of Coast to Coast entirely stringent along orthodox lines? Nope. What a lot of them do is take demonstrated unexplained fact and indulge in conjecture to explain it, for example Cremo or Tellinger regarding various discovered and documented ancient artefacts and sites. The "ancient astronauts" hypothesis is common currency among them, along with alot of Exo politics stuff. The amount of documentation surrounding the latter is also pretty striking. Alot of people won't take stuff as true till someone in the establishment tells them it is so, even though the establishment has a record of getting it wrong or even lying. The orthodoxies of one generation are so often blown away by the next, why people cling to them is a bit of an odd one.I try and simoutaneously believe everything and nothing. I think most regular coast listeners would be open minded like that. I would also note that conspiracism is riddled with it's own orthodoxies.

I still maintain that a conspiracism is not somehow quasi synonymous with far right, I know way too many conspiracists of a liberal / left tilt to justify that.

Butchers - you chided me for over use of the "filth" word rather than a specific use. I would never call England fans that as a homogenous group.

You haven't actually countered my points there, if anything you've just confirmed them. All you've done is list some bonkers theories and say that you don't necessarily dismiss them - thereby demonstrating the underlying shared content of all the stuff on that site. You've highlighted precisely that they all share the same lack of rigour.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yata

"As much as I hate to admit it, people like me are probably the bread and butter of shyt like this- depressed, isolated, out of touch with reality. The real world is boring and depressing, cult leaders like Icke make things seem more interesting"

This is quite a classic counter-conspiracy arguement, essentially relying on cod psychology - "you just want to make the world more interesting" doesn't make any given theory true or untrue by itself.

It's not cos-psychology - he was into conspiracy theory and he was feeling like that at the time. The other conspiracy theorists I've known have all, without exception, smoked too much weed (not that I'm in any place to criticise them for that), have been very socially isolated and of a paranoid mindset. This isn't 'cod psychology' - it's merely being observant. There was a documentary, I think from the BBC, where some psychologists did an experiment with people chosen at random. They were shown conspiracy videos (I believe 7/7 ripple effect and loose change) and the ones who thought they were plausible were far more likely to be isolated, less trusting in general and paranoid. That's not cod-psychology either - it's real, professional psychology.

E2A: This is the documentary I was talking about. But then again everyone knows the media is run by Jewish Marxist Nazi Freemasons so they would say that.

 

[Yata]

and thats a classic counter-counter-conspiracy argument

"you always say we're fantasists"

"you always say we're anti-semitic"

Think there might be a reason for that?
Please don't add any more counters, lol

 

[frogwoman]

That documentary is really very good.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Spineynorman - I will try and watch that doc, but as I keep moaning I have limited net access, especially to sound.

I'll withold comment till I've seen it accept to say that "paranoia, isolation and mistrust" are not directly what I labelled as "cod psychology"...it was the guess of work of "you only believe X because you want things to be exciting, explained etc." (not your accusation)

 

[SpineyNorman]

It wasn't my accusation, nor anyone else's. Yata was explaining that this is how he felt, the reason why he found conspiracy theory seductive - and I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that others felt the same, especially when we take into account the fact that the professional psychologists in that documentary, who specialise in the psychology of conspiracy theorists, came to precisely the same conclusion. And pretty much every conspiracy theorist I've ever met has had the precise same mindset. That's not to say there are no exceptions - there probably are, but it's a useful generalisation.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

hokey dokes. I didn't contradict Yata or his experience, just that it is an accusation I hear a lot.

A persons motivation for believing X may be spurious or not. It has no impact whatsoever on the truth or otherwise of X

 

[butchersapron]

Of course it does if they're bloody producing x!

 

[elbows]

I thought Yata's explanation was very helpful. One reason I cannot help but rant in many conspiracy theory threads is my belief that at least a fair percentage of followers are not lost causes, they have found themselves in that dark place due to a combination of factors including state of mind, and they may end up in quite a different world if their state of mind changes. When other opportunities to struggle make themselves felt, I would expect some people to take them. Those who are not actually rabid right-wingers, racists, xenophobes, anti-semites etc, but are simply robbed of hope and something more productive to believe in right now, and have turned to the dark side in error, may yet be a force for good.

I've no idea what percentage of conspiracy fans this may account for though, nor is it easy to judge whether its worth paying attention to this crowd at all, whether they could ever be a deciding factor in some unstable future where everything is up for grabs and the nation could lurch in any number of directions.

 

[Jazzz]

It's not cos-psychology - he was into conspiracy theory and he was feeling like that at the time. The other conspiracy theorists I've known have all, without exception, smoked too much weed (not that I'm in any place to criticise them for that), have been very socially isolated and of a paranoid mindset. This isn't 'cod psychology' - it's merely being observant. There was a documentary, I think from the BBC, where some psychologists did an experiment with people chosen at random. They were shown conspiracy videos (I believe 7/7 ripple effect and loose change) and the ones who thought they were plausible were far more likely to be isolated, less trusting in general and paranoid. That's not cod-psychology either - it's real, professional psychology.

The point was a (weak) generalisation on the believers of a theory really has very little bearing on settling whether they are correct or not: it's a classic fallacy

ad hominem

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I thought Yata's explanation was very helpful. One reason I cannot help but rant in many conspiracy theory threads is my belief that at least a fair percentage of followers are not lost causes, they have found themselves in that dark place due to a combination of factors including state of mind, and they may end up in quite a different world if their state of mind changes. When other opportunities to struggle make themselves felt, I would expect some people to take them. Those who are not actually rabid right-wingers, racists, xenophobes, anti-semites etc, but are simply robbed of hope and something more productive to believe in right now, and have turned to the dark side in error, may yet be a force for good.

I've no idea what percentage of conspiracy fans this may account for though, nor is it easy to judge whether its worth paying attention to this crowd at all, whether they could ever be a deciding factor in some unstable future where everything is up for grabs and the nation could lurch in any number of directions.

Yep, there's a lot in that. I got frustrated that a significant proportion of CTers who I met in real life and online were victims of the same kind of groupthink that they accuse (for lack of a better expression) "everyday" people of (The term "sheeple" is often bandied about and we have debated that in this realm a fair deal as well).

I don't like the way they preach about some stuff from the internet which I have almost certainly seen myself anyway but I don't accept purely on the premise that I found it down some niche back alley of the cyberspace. They act like it's true, but it's often just conjecture. The difference between me and many of the people here, I think, is that I don't dismiss stuff entirely just on the grounds of it being conjecture.

Many hypothesis that turn out to be correct start out as conjecture.

I don't think it is "dark side" or a symptom of "lack of hope" to look for explanations beyond those doled out by the establishment.

On a simple level I can still be quite "trusting". When I heard that Duggan fired first I believed it. Not that I was too suprised when it turned out to be a fib, I was angry of course.

The establishment lies and rips us off so often that it is far from irrational, "dark side" or whatever to be suspicious about what they are up to.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The point was a (weak) generalisation on the believers of a theory really has very little bearing on settling whether they are correct or not: it's a classic fallacy

ad hominem

Please explain why that's an ad-hominem. We were talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists - in that context it's far from an ad-hominem.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think it is "dark side" or a symptom of "lack of hope" to look for explanations beyond those doled out by the establishment.

But you don't have to believe in weird conspiracies involving Jews and freemasons to look for such explanations. This is something I hear a lot from the loons - you don't accept our nutty "theories" therefore you must be an establishment lacky.

The establishment lies and rips us off so often that it is far from irrational, "dark side" or whatever to be suspicious about what they are up to.

Quite. But you're presenting a false dichotomy here - it's not establishment narrative vs black helecopter conspiracy theories - there are other ways of understanding the world.

It's a technique some conspiraloons use to stifle debate and it's about as far from the truth as you can get. The fact is the establishment are shafting us all, but they don't need clandestine groups to do so - the economic system we have allows them to sew things up right in front of our faces without ever needing to meet one another.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well he has actually predicted much of what has transpired although I hold little truck with him myself.

Well, "predicted" is too strong a word. He's mentioned vague possibilities that he's later claimed were predictions, but he hasn't actually prognosticated anything (although the idea of him with a tea-towel on his head, inhaling exotic fumes and casting the bones is appealing).

From what I'm told he once was a professional footballer and then a sports tv presenter and suddenly either had a breakdown or a seeing of the light as he has told himself ?

He was a goalie, not bad but not brilliant, then he became a local TV and then sports presenter, before having his turquoise tracksuit moment and telling the world he was the new Jesus on "Wogan".

Beyond that I know that my partner has similar ridiculous views .. however he has never been wrong so far !

Rory is a deity among men, of course he hasn't been wrong!

I wonder if these guys had to work for a living if they might still have the same perecifious attitudes towards those of us that do?
They seem to offer little but have much to say ? Does it not make us weep when we have nothing to offer but platitudes and endorsements of the most heinious government systems they hopefully shall ever know ?
I cannot help but weep but to have been born in this despicable age !!

Buuuutttttt .....

I suppose it's entirely possible that the whole "conspiracy theory" schtick is one big disinformation program by "the elite" to attempt to distract us from their crimes in the present by giving us fictions about their crimes of the past.

I certainly hope our children are not too frightened to riot in the future and I'm actually very pleased to expect that they will not have to .. they are way ahead of our stupid game .. we ought to be ashamed and I am quite frankly .

I suspect that the next 3-4 generations will have so much less to lose than we have that riot will be a tool of first resort, not last.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Here are two sentences, spot the one that is actually about zionism.

1) Wow, the state of Israel has really suppassed itself this week, building yet another settlement on palestinian land, another example of the murderous excesses of zionism.

2) Be extremely careful if anyone asks you to riot - this type of social unrest is a tactic described in the Protocols that the zionist rothschilds used to oppress the goyim (but of course people who weren't Jewish did too, just in case any lying zionists decide to accuse me of anti-semitism again, which would, of course, be completely unjustified).

Surely its not rocket science surely??

1) is fair comment.

2) is crap as well as not particularly accurate. The Rothschilds are a pretty disparate bunch, and whoever decided to label them en masse as Zionists is clearly a cretin. Of course, the use of the word Goyim makes very clear that what the author means when saying "Zionist" is "Jewish", so in that context all the Rothschilds would be "Zionist".

Where do they find these people who believe their codes aren't transparent to anyone with the ability to do the crossword in The Sun?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I personally cannot stand this Jewish conspiracy rubbish .. I rather see it as the end result (hoping) of an undesirous mass adherence to a fiscal system controlled by many jews but without a doubt not a Jewish conspiracy.

That may have been true before the time that the Protocols were first created, and it's true that extended Jewish families constituted some of the first modern cross-national banking concerns, but Jews haven't really had more than a fraction of "international banking" for over 150 years.

As a side-note, the first recorded European international bankers were religious orders such as the Dominicans, the Templars and the Knights of St. John, so make of that what you will.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The far right are often obsessed with the Occult, paganism, atlantis, UFOs, secret societies, you name it.

It does not remotely follow that such fields of research are a gateway for the far right, or that people who persue them are of the far right. It does follow that the far right might linger, hoping to recruit. From the consparanoids I know I don't think they would get very far at all.

Butchers - that's right -there's some whacko stuff on CoastToCoast. So what? Does that mean someone has to believe it all? I don't listen to it randomly, I just pick out an hour or so that looks interesting or far out. Again, so what? It certainly aint "filth" (to think you chided me for using that word, or are you being ironic?)

The far right are obsessed by "the Occult, paganism, atlantis, UFOs, secret societies, you name it" because they seek to find a mythological basis by which to justify their politics of "racial purity". This is why we've seen the ridiculous spectacle of fat-bellied bonehead Odinists; of English skinheads with "Celtic Power" tattoos. The great thing about tying all the strands you mention together is that you can create a mythological justification for just about anything.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

But you don't have to believe in weird conspiracies involving Jews and freemasons to look for such explanations. This is something I hear a lot from the loons - you don't accept our nutty "theories" therefore you must be an establishment lacky.

Quite. But you're presenting a false dichotomy here - it's not establishment narrative vs black helecopter conspiracy theories - there are other ways of understanding the world.

It's a technique some conspiraloons use to stifle debate and it's about as far from the truth as you can get. The fact is the establishment are shafting us all, but they don't need clandestine groups to do so - the economic system we have allows them to sew things up right in front of our faces without ever needing to meet one another.

I agree with most of that. Conspiranoids have treated me like an establishment lacky for my Green politics till I reel off a list of niche "researchers" and "whacko" theories like it's a game of top trumps. Then they tend to accept my more moderate line. Let's say 20% of their conspiranoia might have substance, their "I know best" behaviour can put people off discerning what that 20% might be. But "I know best" also comes from the other side.

One doesn't need a "masons or whoever dunnit" narrative to explain much of the ways of the world. Multinational capitalism does explain much of it, but that doesn't always neccessarily work to the short term. Ambition for outcomes can stretch across decades (though they become distorted with time) Efforts can and will be made to steer things in certain directions, just as efforts will be made to counter that by other elites, I daresay. This is where the big NWO narrative faulters - why would e.g ancient Japanese secret societies ever want that or allow it to dominate their percieved sphere of influence? The pupported NWO is almost entirely anglo american in nature and dominance.

Whatever their influence, secret societies do exist and trying to figure out who they are, what they believe and what they try to accomplish is entirely legitimate. To label such an interest as "anti semitic", "structural" or otherwise would be a fraud and a distraction.

 

[twentythreedom]

it is filth, and it is a gateway to the far right

As is the Daily Mail et al

 

[SpineyNorman]

I agree with most of that. Conspiranoids have treated me like an establishment lacky for my Green politics till I reel off a list of niche "researchers" and "whacko" theories like it's a game of top trumps. Then they tend to accept my more moderate line. Let's say 20% of their conspiranoia might have substance, their "I know best" behaviour can put people off discerning what that 20% might be. But "I know best" also comes from the other side.

One doesn't need a "masons or whoever dunnit" narrative to explain much of the ways of the world. Multinational capitalism does explain much of it, but that doesn't always neccessarily work to the short term. Ambition for outcomes can stretch across decades (though they become distorted with time) Efforts can and will be made to steer things in certain directions, just as efforts will be made to counter that by other elites, I daresay. This is where the big NWO narrative faulters - why would e.g ancient Japanese secret societies ever want that or allow it to dominate their percieved sphere of influence? The pupported NWO is almost entirely anglo american in nature and dominance.

Whatever their influence, secret societies do exist and trying to figure out who they are, what they believe and what they try to accomplish is entirely legitimate. To label such an interest as "anti semitic", "structural" or otherwise would be a fraud and a distraction.

But there are credible people, for example Chomsky, and relatively credible publications, like Lobster and Notes from the Borderland, who investigate this stuff - nobody calls them antisemitic (well, hardcore right wing zionists make accusations of antisemitism towards Chomsky but nobody with any sense listens - they call critics of US foreign policy antisemitic too). There are plenty of credible left wing writers who have talked about the influence of groups like the Mont Pelerin (sp?) society, for example Naomi Klein, and nobody calls them antisemitic either. There's a reason for that - they put these groups in the wider structural and institutional context - ie. they're presented as a symptom of the problem - not its root cause. That's another problem with conspiraloonery - implicit in the arguments of the likes of Jones and Icke is the idea that if these groups were got rid of everything would be rosey, which is yet another way in which they help the establishment - which is why the majority of conspiraloons are Ron Paul style "libertarians" - if only the gubmint, Bilderbergers, jews, pinko secret communists, trade unions, etc. were taken out capitalism would bring about liberty and prosperity for all.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Spineynorman

That's another problem with conspiraloonery - implicit in the arguments of the likes of Jones and Icke is the idea that if these groups were got rid of everything would be rosey, which is yet another way in which they help the establishment - which is why the majority of conspiraloons are Ron Paul style "libertarians" - if only the gubmint, Bilderbergers, jews, pinko secret communists, trade unions, etc. were taken out capitalism would bring about liberty and prosperity for all.

Totally. There is nothing to a lot of them but negative critique of the way things are, rather than constructive proposals for ways forward. But it still gets my goat that it's Ron Paul types who make more of the running on the fraud of the Federal Reserve than, say, Kuccinich-ites (who is far more my cup of tea politically, though he has blotted his copybook a bit by being too close to Obama's weaknesses) In the US it is generally the liberarians who make more running on denouncing the 2 party system as a tool of oligarchy. Again, that is a failing of the left (I am a big fan of Cynthia Mckinney but US GP is even more threadbare in organisation outside of strongholds than GPEW)

On this side of the water a lot of these kinds throw their lot in with "freeman of the land" stuff which, though interesting in some regards, is pretty limited and short sighted in too many more.

As for the other aspects of your posts, "symptoms rather than causes" it could be more symbiotic than that, but give me Klein, Chomsky and Wolfe any day over most of the "truth" brigade.

 

[frogwoman]

As is the Daily Mail et al

not really. i'd imagine the "ratio" of actual, active fash who read the daily mail (as opposed to people with reactionary views) compared to everyone else is far lower than the number of fash who read and believe conspiracy theory websites. i'm not saying people haven't been pushed towards the far right by things like the daily mail, but i doubt the percentages are that high. if you go on stormfront loads of them have signatures promoting things like alex jones' website and david icke's website.

i also think it's often the case of that type of loonery attracting a particular type of person as well, a person who just wants to believe in this stuff and not really giving it any critical thought, whereas the daily mail is just a normal paper you can buy anywhere which says some things, a lot of them reactionary. a lot of people who read the daily mail or buy it don't agree with all of the views in it, whereas someone who fanatically reads david icke's website probably will agree (or be trying to convince themselves to agree) with all or the vast majority of it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

As for the other aspects of your posts, "symptoms rather than causes" it could be more symbiotic than that, but give me Klein, Chomsky and Wolfe any day over most of the "truth" brigade.

It really isn't. Capitalism is all about the extraction of surplus value. The neoliberal project, towards which groups like the Mont Pelerin Society made a big contribution, was always about increasing the rate of exploitation, in other words increasing the amount of surplus value capital was able to extract. Causal relationships are rarely clearer than that. I find myself recommending David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism all the time at the moment and this is another instance where Harvey's arguments are invaluable.

The Bilderberg Group is the same (though the loons vastly over-estimate its importance). The Federal Reserve is to some degree, though in my view there's also a pragmatic angle on that one - the fractional banking system is pretty much essential for greasing the cogs of capitalism these days.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

SpineyNorman

Fractional reserve was indeed functional for industrial capitalism, running along for generations at around 10 to 1 ratio. However, the repeal of glass steagal and the switch to finance capital sent it into an overdrive that is at the heart of the current crisis.

That is pretty separate from these arguments though: The Federal reserve is private and the nature of how it operates means that the debt will never be paid back. The whole set up is a scam.

Capitalism as a system is about extraction of surplus value, but the world is more than just abstracted systems - it cheifly revolves around people - many of whom are rapaciously ambitious and will conspire in order to achieve that ambition.

Bilderberg can be over or under estimated in it's importance, but it seems to have been a driving force in establishing such neoliberal hegemony as exists. I like David Harvey a great deal, and am grateful to the urbanites that put me on to him. I do not think his arguments necessarily contradict the notion that people conspire to rip us off and drive society in the direction of their choosing.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Fractional reserve was indeed functional for industrial capitalism, running along for generations at around 10 to 1 ratio. However, the repeal of glass steagal and the switch to finance capital sent it into an overdrive that is at the heart of the current crisis.

I think it was all about keeping the system going - and if it hadn't been necessary to do this to keep the system going it couldn't have happened - so again the root cause lies with capitalism itself. It's possible that the form this short term "solution" took could have differed slightly but it essentially happened because this, or something similar, had to happen in order to sustain the system.

I'm still desperately trying to get my head around financialisation so if this is wide of the mark if someone wants to correct me I'd be grateful, but this is how I think it happened: The deregulation of the financial sector wasn't just about letting a few people get rich at our expense - it was about finding new areas of investment for capital that had no profitable place to go. It was deregulated because it had to be. Financialisation is, I think, a symptom of a deeper crisis in the real economy. Others may disagree with me here, but I think capitalism as an even remotely sustainable system (I'm talking in economic rather than environmental terms here) died in the '70s due to low profitability. In order to keep it going all kinds of weird and irrational things have had to be done, things that make no sense in the context of provision of goods and services but make perfect sense in the context of the extraction of surplus value. There are others on here who know this stuff far better than I do, but my understanding is that all these weird and wonderful financial products that the repeal of the act made possible were needed to open up new markets for speculation as there was a crisis of profitability in the real economy. It delayed a crisis rather than causing a crisis. That it also made possible a massive upwards transfer of wealth was a nice bonus. It allowed bubbles to be inflated that kept the economy going. To use an analogy, the economy was a runner with a broken leg. Rather than taking the pain and resting up, the economy took loads of morphine and kept running - so the pain was delayed, but it also hurt and damn site more.

Capitalism as a system is about extraction of surplus value, but the world is more than just abstracted systems - it cheifly revolves around people - many of whom are rapaciously ambitious and will conspire in order to achieve that ambition.

Of course the world (by this I'm assuming you mean human social relations) revolves around people - I don't disagree with that, I'm not an economic determinist. But at root the neoliberal project is class war from above - it's the capitalists acting as a class to further their class interests - safe in the knowledge that what furthers their class interests also furthers their individual interests. It wasn't just those present at the meetings that gained from it, was it? Like a trade union for the super-rich. Quite how that contradicts my point about the primacy of economics in this is beyond me. Without a capitalist class you can't have capitalists conspiring to further their class interests. What would have happened if the Mont Pelerin Society had never met? Would the neoliberal project, or something else serving a similar function, not have been embarked upon?

Bilderberg can be over or under estimated in it's importance, but it seems to have been a driving force in establishing such neoliberal hegemony as exists. I like David Harvey a great deal, and am grateful to the urbanites that put me on to him. I do not think his arguments necessarily contradict the notion that people conspire to rip us off and drive society in the direction of their choosing.

I agree. But what do you think would happen if we suddenly found a way of stopping the Bilderberg Group meeting? Would they suddenly stop conspiring?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

SpineyNorman.

The analysis of your first paragraph looks pretty sensible. Thing is, some people feel ill qualified to pontificate on economics, I am lucky that I did A level, was well taught and always maintained an interest. But so many "experts" are clueless suckers for the neoliberal orthodoxies that keep them in work, so your estimations are as well qualified as many peoples. Take fucknuts Osborne who is supposed to be running the show. He is driving the economy into the ground and making the worst of a bad situation.

Anyhow somewhere between your analysis and a more conspiracist analysis (I reckon) is "confessions of an economic hitman" which is well worth looking into. The author is up on Youtube talking about his background.

And Bilderberg? Would they STOP conspiring if we stopped them. ' course not. Are you now accepting they might be conspiring? Have you become a CONSPIRACY THEORIST?