Why Conspiracy Theories?

We could start a thread alone on "common sense"...that'd be a good procrastination tool...

I wish people who used that term would admit to themselves that when they're using it they're basically admitting that they have an opinion based on their own very 'common' sense that happens to run counter to their interlocutor's opinion (hate to use such an archaic word but I can't think of a better one there...). There aren't several different planes of cognition, so that only some people have access to the upper echelons of "uncommon" cognitive styles.(Autistic savants being a possible exception here, but not a categorical one...) People's brains follow pretty reliable patterns when it comes to cognition. Some people are faster about it, or better at this or that mundane task-- rotating 3-D objects in their minds, or spelling, or grammar, or arithmetic. Verbal acuity, mechanical, etc. The most intelligent people are the ones who are best able to synthesize seemingly disparate bits of information and, more importantly, to forge logical arguments in the full knowledge that, no matter how logically sound their reasoning, their premises could be false so the whole edifice could come tumbling down should someone challenge their assumptions.

This is why, if there is something opposed to "common sense", it's science, not philosophy or crit theory. Philosophy isn't very good at examining its own biases (admittedly, it has become better at this in the past hundred years or so...) Although philosopher-mathematicians did give us formal logic, which was gracious of them...

vimothy said:

Yes she does. Right here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=151622054511026116

Second comment. She then replies to herself in the third comment.

Click to expand...

She also uses the Qlipoth ID. She did it in my blog comments, dude. And then it was confirmed by MacCruiskeen afterward. Look at it if you don't believe me.

Not that it matters much...but she does write and post comments as Qlipoth.

Qlipoth is a group blog. Afaik, numerous individuals have access to the account.

You can't seriously tell me there's another HMLT out there.

I'm always slightly creeped out by references to HMLT/Padraig. there's a particular kind of uneasiness at having an Internet doppelganger, especially when it's an extremely verbose & overwrought Irish Marxist (that thread - possibly more than one - where he claimed that everyone serving in the American military is a mercenary & that there's no difference between them & Blackwater etc. is an all-time favorite), though I suppose that's exactly the kind of weird not-quite-symmetry I'd expect my doppelganger to have. it's a lot to live up to, anyway. I'm left wondering who the evil twin is, tho I did recently lower my chances considerably by shaving the mountain man beard off.

on topic, I'm always amazed at people who not only find the time to run blogs, but to knock up all those long, painstakingly composed comments. I mean, more power to them, but that's some real-time prolific ish I can't even touch.

Christ, Irish Padraid had about 4 different aliases without Amerikkkan Padraig showing up to complicate things! And who the fuck is "jeremy"?

I thought that was you for a minute swears cos that comment coincided with you mentioning padraig (i.e.) here. ;0)

Further I did think that MacCruiskeen was the same person Le Colonel, they also have quite similar styles. Oh the fun...

I'd like to see one or other of them post ere though, it would be good.

We're through the looking glass here, people...

vimothy said:

You can't seriously tell me there's another HMLT out there.

Click to expand...

This is a fascinating and terrifying idea. What would happen if they met, do you think? Would it be like trying to crush a couple of diamonds against each other? Or more like coalescing black holes?

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, except for the true ones.

vimothy said:

You can't seriously tell me there's another HMLT out there.

Click to expand...

There's dozens of 'em. Ever read the comments at Lenin's Tomb? Leftist internet hardmen galore.

Sorry to bump this one from the grave - but I wondered if anyone wanted to talk about the view, associated with Chomsky and others, that opposes conspiracy theories to institutional analysis and prefers the latter?
It's something that's been on my mind lately - although it's clearly a useful distinction, the more I think about it I wonder whether it fully holds up and whether institutional analysis alone is sufficient for the critical examination of politics? This maybe relates to what John and Droid were discussing near the start of the thread, about the importance (but also the difficulty) of distinguishing between conspiracy theorising and legitimate investigative work of various kinds.

what is happening is a response to the forthcoming apocolypse basically innit. the oil is running out. the world is getting hotter. power rationing is round the corner. food rationing. what you are seeing is a transition to a much more controlled society. the structues are sensibly being put into place before the disasters. the technology is there already. th political structures are being built. its not just fascism for the sake of fascism but as a response to a world which is in danger of spiralling out of control.

dont bother stockpiling ammnition or learning organic farming. its too late. just try and have some fun now before the world turns mean.

droid said:

Theres a fine line between William Blum and Mike Ruppert, and the line tends to shift, IMO, examintaion of the logic behind the theory rather than the facts provides a quicker indication as to its credibility...

Click to expand...

i agree with the general anti-conspiracy theories and pro-institutional analysis sentiments in this thread, but just to play devil's advocate:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blum

Blum has described the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington DC. as "an understandable retaliation against US foreign policy."[5] However, he has also written that there are "serious contradictions and apparent lies in the Official Government Version" of the September 11 attacks and that the New York skyscrapers apparently "collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition". Blum has suggested elements of the US government "let it happen" using the events as a justification for the war on terror.[6]

Click to expand...

the let it happen argument is by far the most plausible of all the 9/11 con-theories. it accounts for a large number of teas objections

i think conspiracy theories and theorizing, as a "culture", as a "way of doing things", or "way of thinking", or even as an "asethetic", is very much subject to the legitimate and important criticism leveled against it.

but it can also be a gateway for people who otherwise do not question anything - to which it is of course preferable. if i had to, i would much much rather spend a weekend with a weed smoking conspiracy nutjob than a square, the all too common kind who not only swallow all the bullshit on TV at face value but actually gets righteous about it.

the point may be not to get stuck in the pointless and passively consuming patterns of the conspiracy nut, but to move on from there, and start getting into the (more) real stuff, with ones faculties intact.

luka said:

the let it happen argument is by far the most plausible of all the 9/11 con-theories. it accounts for a large number of teas objections

Click to expand...

This is certainly true. All it would take is a tacit decision by a couple of high-up bods, perhaps even a single person, in the CIA. The decision not to pursue a certain line of investigation, not to pass on a memo...communications within and between the CIA and FBI around that time were lambasted as totally inadequate by a subsequent report...it's not impossible that in some instances they were deliberately inadequate. This picture still allows that the attacks were actually committed by al-Qa'eda agents, as AQ has maintained all along.

It's certainly infinitely more plausible that the "hardcore" WTC-rigged-with-dynamite type theories.

luka said:

the let it happen argument is by far the most plausible of all the 9/11 con-theories. it accounts for a large number of teas objections

Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. Although it also bypasses 99.9% of the evidence - it's hard to imagine it being popular among most conspiracy theorists because it would mean admitting that all of their painstakingly argued and totally 100% incontrovertible 'evidence' for a controlled demolition or the planes being drones or whatever was in fact total bullshit all along.

just another branch of disaster capitalism... using disasters to the advantage of global capitlaism, just as, for example, the haitian earthquake was used.

it was a golden opportunity for neocons to do what would have been impossible under other circumstances. Whether or not they let it happen is almost irrelevant - to misquote that trader, they lay awake at night dreaming of a (limited) foreign attack on american soil.