The point of conspiracy theories?

[tim]

I don't see quite what the fuck my socio-ecomonic background has to do with the price of fish, but to answer your questions, no, no, and no, I don't think you need be told.

You're right. We don't need to be told, because we already know.

 

[Jazzz]

You're right. We don't need to be told, because we already know.

You're funny aren't you? My three answers are not inconsistent at all, the fact that I need not answer a question does not preclude me from doing so if I choose.

 

[sparticus]

Hi Dr J

I'm not really posting at the moment because I am working (as in proper work) and also working on my reply to the editor on the other thread. As you know I think looking at the micro evidence such as mobile phones and pods, etc does not serve us in bringing 9/11 truth to a wider audience but I thought those of you who like to look at the micro evidence such as pods on the underside of planes etc would like to see this link from this other discussion forum I post on

Trust you are keeping well

Ian

 

[greenman]

If the point of conspiracy theories is to give the lower middle class a simplistic and reductionist explanation for their predicament, could not the same be said of Marxism and Anarchism (both of which have plenty of lower middle class/declasse exponents on these boards)?

Of course, conspiracy theorist, marxist and anarchist alike would all say that their beliefs are based on well researched scientific evidence (even, in the case of Marxists, laws of history.)

 

[laptop]

I was wondering whether, for example, similar things happened with the advent of mass printing (scaremongering pamphlets about the menace of the Jews, the French, conspiracies to topple the British state from across the water, etc).

Probably, yes. It's not easy to know to what extent, because in many places the pamphlets were the illegal product of underground presses.

But some of the classics that survive from the revolution of 1640 - the only texts from the time that I've looked at in any detail - were pretty barking.

Arguably, printing caused the protestant sects, by giving preachers and prophets (i.e. paranoids) a platform. Dissemination of the bible in the vernacular was also important, but that's an entirely different argument.

 

[Idris2002]

This comment says a lot about the insults and baiting that passes for free discussion around here.

I don't see quite what the fuck my socio-ecomonic background has to do with the price of fish, but to answer your questions, no, no, and no, I don't think you need be told.

It certainly wasn't my intention to cause you personal offence, DrJ, and I apologise for any such offence (unintentionally) caused.

greenman - your point is not that bad . . .

Briefly - whatever you may think of the credibility of marxism as a paradigm, I don't think you could say that it was a conspiratorial system. After all, the centrepiece of marx's system was the analysis of 'the laws of motion of capital' - the insight that the apparently random economic behaviour of the individuals involved in capitalism fell into regular patterns, patterns which were not the result of manipulation of some secret conspiracy, but because of certain inherent features of commodity production.

But what you say about marxism being used for purposes closer to the function that CTs serve for their adherents is valid, I admit.

 

[laptop]

Briefly - whatever you may think of the credibility of marxism as a paradigm, I don't think you could say that it was a conspiratorial system. After all, the centrepiece of marx's system was the analysis of 'the laws of motion of capital' - the insight that the apparently random economic behaviour of the individuals involved in capitalism fell into regular patterns, patterns which were not the result of manipulation of some secret conspiracy, but because of certain inherent features of commodity production.

Yup, that's the opposite of a conspiracy theory.

Marx and Adam Smith both basically said: capitalism may walk like a conspiracy and quack a bit suspiciously, but it's just the working out of a complex web of (perceived) self-interest (and, oh, all right then, class interest).

But what you say about marxism being used for purposes closer to the function that CTs serve for their adherents is valid, I admit.

Marx abhorred vulgar "Marxism"...

 

[Idris2002]

'As for me, I'm not a marxist'.

- Karl Marx.

 

[Jazzz]

Capitalism is not a conspiracy... don't know where you got that one from.

Irony of this thread is that it is seeks to pigeonhole conspiracy theorists as people who feel a need to 'explain' things rather than just accept them for what they are, exactly what it itself is doing with 'conspiracy theorists'!

 

[Idris2002]

The purpose of introducing the capitalist system into this thread is to show that the system which has the greatest influence over the condition and direction of our lives is a system which, by definition, is not a conspiracy.

Do you really think that's not relevant to a debate over the credibility of conspiracy theories?

Here in Northern Ireland it's looking increasingly likely that MI5 was working hand in glove with loyalist paramilitaries, in order to direct them away from targetting their agents within the republican paramilitaries (and kill innocent catholics instead).

That's an example of a conspiracy, I'll grant you. But it would be false to assume that conspiracies are what accounts for the patterns that the last 35 years of Northern Irish history display. Those patterns are ultimately related to economic (decline of heavy industry) and demographic (expansion of catholic population) factors.

And those factors can't be seen as the result of conspiracies.

 

[Dirty Martini]

Irony of this thread is that it is seeks to pigeonhole conspiracy theorists as people who feel a need to 'explain' things rather than just accept them for what they are, exactly what it itself is doing with 'conspiracy theorists'!

Do you mean the thread is attempting to explain 'conspiracy theorists?'

This isn't really the issue, is it? Those who question 9/11 scepticism are not just accepting things for what they are. On the contrary, the more valid argument to my mind is the one that says that the blanket refusal to accept any official version of any event (ime 9/11 sceptics will more than likely talk about the AIDS myth or the death of Diana, whatever, in the same terms) constitutes acceptance. Acceptance that something will always be wrong with the official version. No?

'Never be satisfied' is a decent maxim, for journalists above all. But seeing conspiracies everywhere one looks draws one into a netherworld that has nothing to do with life-changing, radical or heretical thought; all one sees is a host of multiplying realities that are their own justification.

The point about the conspiracy arguments on these boards is that there is a distinct lack of proof about incredibly farfetched and outlandish claims from suddenly emergent figures from the fringes of academic and public life.

 

[fela fan]

Dirty martini, the biggest conspiracy doing the rounds these days is the USG version of events.

You should recognise that conspiring is the stuff of liars and politicians. It is in their interest to have members of the public arguing amongst each other.

And because we do, they continue to get away with the conspiracies they present to us.

 

[Dirty Martini]

Dirty martini, the biggest conspiracy doing the rounds these days is the USG version of events.

You should recognise that conspiring is the stuff of liars and politicians. It is in their interest to have members of the public arguing amongst each other.

And because we do, they continue to get away with the conspiracies they present to us.

I knew you'd say that!

Do you know something I don't?

This thread is a potentially interesting one with lots of good posts above. My general take on it at the moment is that there is something in the way that culture and technology have come together in the last few hundred years, resulting from capitalist development and the rise of civil society, that means that fears over the way power has been abused in a whole variety of areas are being ever more easily articulated. This ease of articulation, where the internet plays a hugely important role, becomes the engine of fantasy.

Of course politicians lie and conspire; few on these boards would say they don't. But 9/11 scepticism is so baroque and relies on a set of circumstances so incredible and contingencies so complex as to be unbelievable. I just don't believe it.

I'll make common cause with you and others against capitalism and US and UK foreign policy; but I fear that when it comes to the crunch, interest is greater in the pleasure of wild fantasy misdirected.

 

[Jazzz]

Is it you who is Will Self?

 

[Dirty Martini]

Is it you who is Will Self?

Is that directed at me, mate? If so (a) wtf does that mean? (b) don't give the rolleyes

 

[fela fan]

I'll make common cause with you and others against capitalism and US and UK foreign policy; but I fear that when it comes to the crunch, interest is greater in the pleasure of wild fantasy misdirected.

Well DM, let me speak from my corner on this (and i don't mean you necessarily here, just in general on these threads). I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do i like wallowing in wild fantasies. Nor do i look down upon those that disagree with me. And all that is what those who scream CT say. I am included in their targets, coz i am a CT.

Well, when i hear this said about me, then i just wonder what kind of world they're living on. Coz it's all wrong, yet they post with such certainty.

I don't know how it was done, but when i mix the evidence that those in the USG are liars, proven liars, with that of their propensity to kill millions in pursuing their geopolitical agenda (proven, documented, history), with that of the version of 911 they have presented to the world, ie they were grossly incompetent over a magnitude of areas, then i lead myself to conclude that they organised the whole shebang.

And for that i am a CT. It's a laugh really.

You see to me, all the elements of conspiracy are the things like the magical flying passport, last minute revision from manuals on how to fly a jet, black boxes that don't get found, hijackers using boxcutters to carry out the most sensational attack ever (we are told countless times that security was lax for domestic flights, so why did they only bother with boxcutters), and so the list goes on.

So to sum up why i believe what i do:

The USG are made up of people that have no qualms about foreign civilians and US soldiers dying in their thousands, millions. Therefore, they are amoral.

The USG are made up of people who are known to lie, and to lie often.

The USG represent the one superpower in the world, and have the biggest military and most extensive intelligence of any nation. They are asking the public of the world to accept that they were guilty of incompetence in stopping the attacks.

That incompetence, when one stops to think about it, simply cannot be incompetence. There's too much that didn't work in reaction to the event, and too much that was ignored prior to the event.

And i'm a CT!!! I'm dealing with facts. I don't look down on posters here, but i sure am bemused, confused, and incredulous that they believe in their own waffle.

 

[white rabbit]

edit: Ooh look, 5k.

 

[Stavrogin]

I find your lack of faith obnoxious, bitch

he said it, not me

 

[sparticus]

Thankyou!

That's precisely what I've been trying (and failing) to get into words for some time. My frustration with conspiracy theories stems mostly from the fact that the criticisms are specific, rather than systemic. It's such a ridiculously simplistic and yet ridiculously complex way of understanding the system we find ourselves within.

Hi Zara

This is a very interesting point and I know one that finds a lot of favour in what passes for intellectual debate around conspiracy theorists. The argument goes that CTers believe it is ALL the work of an elite, corrupt bunch evil geniuses and this explains everything, whilst learned political scienists, lecturers and policy makers scoff and say that is plainly absurd, The worlds's problems have hugely complex systemic causes.

And I read these learned papers and think why oh why does it have to be either/or. There have been many genuine conspiracies (or as prefer to call them criminal enterprises involving a complex interaction of elite players from politics, the media and other seats of power). Examples include Watergate, Iran Contra, Enron and so on and on. Anyone who knows anything about global and national politics knows that most significant decisions are made by groups of elite power holders (otherwise why do they hold G8 meetings or Bilderberg meetings for that matter) and sometimes the true nature of this decision making is hidden from the public. The world is clearly influenced majorly by the decisions and world view of the elite. There are also clearly systemic reasons that expalin the world's problems.

So if you like Zara can you explain to me why it has to be either CT or systemic and not BOTH? The danger you fall into is using the elite's arguments to dismiss news and issues they don't want you to hear or look at. It is so much more intellectually safe to say it is all systemic since it clearly is. However elite conspiracies are also true. Most people I have met who believe that some (not ALL) conpiracies (as in CT's) are true also believe our problems are systemic as well. Both not either/or

Ian

 

[Idris2002]

If you look at Christopher Hitchens' The Trial of Henry Kissinger, CH argues (conclusively, IMO) that Kissinger was involved in criminal conspiracies to subvert the legitimate elected government of Chile.

Unlike most conspiracy theorists, CH provides solid, credible, documentary evidence in support of his claims about Kissinger's criminal activities.

Also, unlike most conspiracy theorists, CH doesn't assume that the whole of Chilean history from 1970 onwards can be pinned on a conspiracy.

Which came first - the system or the covert, criminal activities within it?

Always the system.

Criminals like Kissinger are best viewed as being analogous to surfers, riding the waves of history. But it's the wave that's most important at the end of the day - the surfer can ride on top of it, but he can't invent or (totally) control it.

 

[editor]

this other discussion forum I post on

What the fuck is CwG?

Is it some sort of happy clappy navel-gazing God stuff?

 

[sparticus]

Yes it is Ed. But how is that relevant

"Answer the question"

1-0 to the CTers, 1-0 to the CTers, 1-0 to the CTers, all together now

Ian

 

[zarathustra]

The argument goes that CTers believe it is ALL the work of an elite, corrupt bunch evil geniuses and this explains everything, whilst learned political scienists, lecturers and policy makers scoff and say that is plainly absurd, The worlds's problems have hugely complex systemic causes.

Nice of you to split 'the argument' (who's argument? you wouldn't be trying a straw man would you? ) into such unbiased terms. On one hand you have CTers and on the other hand you have the intellectual establishment. Is everyone who puts forward 'the argument' (being as it as a homogenous body defined only by it's opposite to CTers ) a member of the intellectual establishment?

So if you like Zara can you explain to me why it has to be either CT or systemic and not BOTH?

I never said it was either/or. As Idris said,

Criminals like Kissinger are best viewed as being analogous to surfers, riding the waves of history. But it's the wave that's most important at the end of the day - the surfer can ride on top of it, but he can't invent or (totally) control it.

This quite poetically sums up my own views. My problem is less that CTers looks for conspiratorial explanations for specific events but that these specific events (in my experience at least) are interpreted soley in conspiratorial terms.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that criminal conspiracies exist among the elite. Although I think the causes which give rise to the material conditions that allow these conspiracies to happen are largely systemic, people are not automotons - especially powerful people - and they consciously as well as unconsiously try and further the interests of their friends, family and associates.

However it's the intellectual paradigm within which CTers operate which fascinates me and motivated me to start this thread.

Ockham's razor, for a start, never seems to be a concern for CTers I've talked to.

 

[Idris2002]

What's the betting they won't engage directly with the surfer analogy, zara?

Also - conspiracy theories aren't theories in the strict sense of the word, i.e. they're not lawlike generalisations intended to explain or predict empirical phenomena.

They're more like myths. Whereas theories can be overthrown if a better one comes along, myths have a sacred status which make them untouchable. Also they can be cobbled together not according to criteria such as their adherence to Occam's razor, but according to whichever prearranged point the CT wants to make (e.g. JFK was killed by a conspiracy, the world is run by giant lizards, etc.)

 

[laptop]

Unlike most conspiracy theorists, CH provides solid, credible, documentary evidence in support of his claims about Kissinger's criminal activities.

And it's that that distinguishes him from the CTers - particularly that he has a definition of "evidence" and could hold his own in an intelligent argument about how pieces of evicence fit together in support of a thesis, or not.

That's in distinction to the "could have..." form of argument you see from CTers.

Wherever a conspiracy has occurred, only someone who is not a CTer can possibly show that it has.

 

[Jazzz]

Wherever a conspiracy has occurred, only someone who is not a CTer [conspiracy theorist] can possibly show that it has.

Priceless... I shall have to save this non-sequitur on disk! It even compares with editor's classic "The lack of evidence for the official theory works against the conspiracy theorists".

 

[Lock&Light]

This statement works fine for me. If the USG wanted to commit this crime and place the blame on Al Quaeda whould you not expect there to be more 'evidence' of such blame provided?

 

[zarathustra]

What's the betting they won't engage directly with the surfer analogy, zara?

I'd bet rather a lot on it. Although if I'm wrong, it's only because the lot I was prepared to beg tempted them into it.

If the USG wanted to commit this crime and place the blame on Al Quaeda whould you not expect there to be more 'evidence' of such blame provided?

Oh god yes.

The CTers seem to think that Ockham bloke was a bit of a twat.

 

[zarathustra]

Priceless... I shall have to save this non-sequitur on disk! It even compares with editor's classic "The lack of evidence for the official theory works against the conspiracy theorists".

How was it a non-sequitor?

Maybe she/he was referring to the lack of falsification within the CT paradigm? What would it take to prove your theory wrong, Dr J?

Don't make me quote the parable of the gardener to you.

 

[hammerntongues]

Can any of the CT faithfull give any examples that have eventually unravelled to become conspiracy fact ?? Whilst your at it I`d like a photograph of either a Ghost or Nessie.