|From:||rob hollander <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Sunday, November 13, 2011 5:05:03 PM|
|Subject:||SPAM-MED: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [september17discuss] Article: "The Leaders of the Allegedly Leaderless Movement"|
My original point was that calling information a "conspiracy theory" has for decades been a well worn tool of the 1% to throw the general public off the track of things they didn't want to know. It is closely alligned with plausible deniablilty. In each of the cases, large percentages of the public bought the line that only wackos would believe that the government would do such a thing. I would just sugest not using the same tool, when attacking the actual argument is much more effective.As I said, these were not conspiracy theories at all -- they were well known facts at the time, disputed only by the purveyors of power and lies, and it was mostly just the conspirators who purveyed them. That's true of the usurpation in Chile, US illicit support of the Contras, US invention of WMDs in Iraq. If you can't distinguish between freemasons running the world, on the one hand, and Bush, Cheney and Powell BSing the public when it was plainly obvious that BS was all it was from the very start, then we have a difference of opinion. Because I don't subscribe to any "conspiracy theories" of the former type, but I recognize that the US gov't is involved in all sorts of covert and overt BS actions of the latter type. The latter is not a conspiracy theory. That's long established fact about how the US operates.
I distinguish between the two. I trust others do too. This discussion is going around in circles. Suffice it to say that Global Research is not a major source of news media.On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:06 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Go back to my previous list of government actions that were denounced as conspiracy theories but have been proven completely true. I'll find you more if you need them another day. That does not mean that every conspiracy theory is true, it just means that just because someone calls something a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it is false. Each story must be investigated and proved, or disproved, on its own merits. The war in Iraq as Shaista pointed out was a conspiracy to commit a violent fraud on the world, but those of us that pointed that out in 2002 and 2003 were called unpatriotic conspiracy theorists to discredit us.I don't see that anywhere, jem. Maybe I've missed it.
Especially since 9/11, there has been a cottage industry of fringe conspiracies, mostly pointing to the illuminati, freemasons, etc. Surely you've seen Loose Change, Zeitgeist....
Those folks do not participate in political or social justice movements. They believe that occupiers are stooges of the world ruler-illuminati-new-world-order-whatever. They believe socialists are part of the conspiracy.
They avoid political activism like the plague. They think it's all a foregone conclusion. They tend to believe that every rational explanation is a deception and every crazy theory is rational.
They tend not to understand economics and have little understanding of the political process and how it is actually compromised at every level. They know something is wrong and out of their control, but, having so little understanding, they distrust all sources that sound level-headed, and fly to the whacky.
They support each other with their extreme whack. Their only virtue I can see is that they can't easily be recruited into a cult, since they are so paranoid that they can't trust any leader. But they are, in a sense, a kind of leaderless cult.On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, <email@example.com> wrote:The phrase "conspiracy "theory" is an invention of the 1%. Usually there is no conspiracy. It is just a bunch of people with the same worldview making similar decisions. Then every time evidence begins to come out that a government or corporation is doing something outrageous, the guilty parties yell "conspiracy theory" to discredit the story and those that discovered it.On 11/12/11, shaista husain<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Thanks Jen, for excellent points. The problem with conspiracy theories, is not that there are no conspiracies, its just that the whole of history becomes one long endless unraveling of conspiracy plots controlled by an elite and the future depends upon unraveling the conspiracies of these few individuals, ad hominem. There is never an end to these conspiracies. Whether is it the Illuminati, the British Empire, the Rotschilds/Rockefellars controlling the Federal Reserve, etc etc and so on and so forth. The problem with this kind of understanding of history is that it has no methodology or solutions except to uncover more secret plots. When there is no viable alternative, it is the obsession with plots, hidden forces beyond our control, removing a few bad apples will somehow save humanity. Yet, there is always a new secret plot to unravel. The logic leaves us believing power is in the beyond, we are just pawns in some game of masters and that we can change nothing. The ruling class has its own set of rules and practice and creates crisis of which it is not in control of. The contradictions created by capitalism can be understood by a historical method, through careful study, understanding the objective conditions that give rise to contradiction and these forces can transformed structurally--ie. that we, human beings have agency and are capable of changing. (For exapmle, the difference between the idea that some blue blooded reptilians evil group has made slaves us of all. There is no scientific validity or rational way to disprove such theories.. because the logic is --look the stock market fell, its those reptilians at it again!!" -- obviously, I am exaggerating the idea here to give an example but basically it offers no solution or alternative--we are innocent bystanders witnessing the great epic tragedy of history--helpless observers --we undergo catharsis at then end of the play, clap loudly, cry sob and wail and come back next week to see the same play albeit with the latest hollywood actor...) There is the idea of alienation that marxists speak of--we are living in an epoch where things appear to be so out of reach that we fall upon paranoia and fear, not because there aren't conspiracies happening. The point at which Terror begins is with the introduction of conspiracies... The conspiracy that Iraq had weapons of nuclear destruction, that Qadaffi was about to destroy Benghazi, now Iran is up for grabs--It is mostly the powers that be that are the original conspiracy theorists--for every humanitarian mission has to do with bombing killing maiming, not one school is ever built, not one child is ever fed, nothing is ever built during these humanitarian missions of UN/NATO--all extrajudicial killings in foreign soil is perfectly legal since the bogeyman terrorist was about to destroy the world and US/NATO the superman could only save us from our enemy. Our mainstream press thrives on conspiracies, warmongering and fearmongering the american people into supporting the wars abroad--creating bogeymens--after osama, there is new one, another one, and so and so forth, it never ends, and US will never leave Afghhanistan or Libya or IRaq because as the world's moral and military police there is always a new bogeyman.Peace
When popular mobilizations occur, it becomes evident that this narrative is nothing but justification of war, a logic that assumes people can never administer justice or self rule that barbarians have to be civilized. It takes power away from self determination of people and leads to the conclusion that only US/NATO can successfully liberate or rescue the world, when in fact, it is the US/NATO who conducts state sponsored terrorism.
As political activists we are trying to create strategy for practical application to empower people through democratic means of participation, that is the difference, with those who have no structural and historical understanding of objective material crisis of the forces of global capital, nor any strategy to expose contradictions, and offer no mean by which we can change our own predicament through self determination and agency. Conspiracy theories leave agency out, leave alienation out--are themselves lacking agency and alienated forms of political naivetee. conspiracy theories numb people into further apathy.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM, rob hollander <email@example.com> wrote:Excellent points, John (jem). Not all conspiracy hypotheses are "whacky fringe." My point is not that they are conspiracy theorists, but they are whacky fringe conspiracy theorists (as I mentioned in the first post).
There have been conspiracies, but they are usually proved well before gov'ts release their documents and admit. Admission is not the only proof or reliable evidence. That's true of Allende, WMDs in Iraq, not so much of North, but I don't recall any conpsiracy theorists about North -- it was exposed pretty suddenly, as I recall -- although eveyone always knew that the ""Freedom Fighter""[gag] Contras were nothing but a front for US subversive insurgency in Nicaragua.
In the case of Gobal Research, "whacky fringe" applies because even if their theory turns out to be true, they are still fringe and still whacky. A mainstream media source they are not.
Now, the failings of the mainstream media, which often fuel the conspirators, is another story altogether. I'd worry about them. I do hope and expect that they will be marginalized by social media and youtube and blogs so that people can not only see and learn for themselves what actually happens in significant events, but also see just how falsely the media spin them.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Please go to the comment section on the article and paste your arguments, people are going there and assuming that article is the whole truth.
Please do not use "conspiracy theorist" as an insult. That is a trick of the 1%. There are plenty of conspiracy theories have turned out to be provable. In the eighties only conspiracy theorists believed that Ollie North was running guns to Central America to pay for cocaine going back to the states to pay for missiles to go to Iran to pay for the hostage release conveniently timed for Reagan's swearing in. Or that the US was selling Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and then giving him targeting information on Iranian troops from US satellites.
There are recently declassified diplomatic cables in which Nixon gave orders to make the Chilean economy "scream," and Kissinger told those overthrowing the Allende Government do what ever you have to do, we will complain in public but we will support you all the way--carte blanche to commit assassinations.
Also declassified proof that Operation Condor was official collusion between the governments of South American countries to assassinate each other's leftists. These conspiracy theories took over thirty years to prove.
See the evidence for many conspiracy theories on the National Security Archives at George Washington University http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ , where they do thousands of freedom of information requests every year to find out what is really going on.On 11/12/11, rob hollander<email@example.com> wrote:I didn't say right wing. They are conspiracy theorist fringe:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20980On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM, shaista husain <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Well, no Rob dismissing everything as right wing fringe is also dangerous. We learn by examination and self reflexivity. That is what is important --so we can better define and discern and have judgement about the structures we are trying to create....the ability to address even right wing fringe groups... is important.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:35 PM, rob hollander <email@example.com> wrote:Why are people taking this article seriously? It's Global Research. It's a whacky fringe conspiracy group. I mean, there are more important things to worry about than every wing-nut article.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:19 PM, shaista husain <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Jackie is 1000% correct, but i wouldn't call this anarchism. It is conspiracy theory, one can note by the circular arguments that never offer a working solution, except his own particular idea of what the whole OWS should be doing. According to the logic of the author, the the crimes of the six could not be addressed by the GA--which led to it--and can neither be resolved through SpokeCouncil structure where the problems have been addressed and being remedied. What is the solution here, for this author? Shall we all dissolve everything? Just dissolve the Spokes and return to the original GA structure of dealing with finance? Not clear at all. The author would like to see more occupations of foreclosed homes or defense of evictions in NYC. This is something that is one part of OWS tactics of diversity or direct actions on many fronts... and? Ok..but should the whole movement be doing only one action on one front. This is conspiracy theory, the inability to understand that simultaneous fronts are necessary and that implementing democratic structure with checks and balances, revolving participants can resolve issues
of transparency as ongoing self correcting manner.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Jackie DiSalvo <email@example.com> wrote:
This is bullshit propaganda, resembling the worst kind of anarchism. The Spokes council is a big step forward in efficiency and accountability. At a previous GA to which I had invited my women's group, on the other hand, 45 minutes were spent dealing with one person's concern over the cost of renting a truck to do laundry; my friends left somewhat disheartened about the process and have not returned since. It was reported from Madrid that GAs fell apart out of boredom with an unwieldy consensus process.
The Spokes council solves this problem democratically while retaining the democracy of the GA for substantive matters. The proposal passed because it was improved in response to earlier objections raised in the MANY GA and other discussions of it. The “spokes” (working group representatives) are accountable to their groups, members of whom are encouraged to attend and consult with their spoke on decisions. Finance is accountable to the Spokes council and ultimately to the GA to which anyone can bring a concern. Large allocations of funds still go to the GA. Finances are transparent, & public as are all decisions. Groups can rotate their representatives as often as they like to encourage broad participation. If anything, there is an excessive concern for maximizing democratic participation (anyone can show up at the GA & vote as opposed to the form of democracy which involves everyone in the working groups - many hundreds of people (my Labor Group now has 185- who can participate via weekly meetings or online). No one has to go to 3 meetings a week to participate; you can have input through a working group, one GA (a proposal usually takes more than one to pass & all are on line), through consulting with your spoke at a spokes council or through expressing one’s views to the general population or working groups online. Anyone can join the Finance or Facilitation group.
I was afraid blocks would lead to rule of the minority, but a very high level of objection is required for a block, and there’s usually a way to work through the objection through discussion & friendly or other amendments & blocked proposals that are not overridden by a 90% vote (as the Spokes council proposal) usually go back to the drawing board to accommodate the objections and be presented again. I would prefer a 2/3 vote for overcoming a block but must admit that there people have functioned very responsibly with genuine concern for coming to agreement, and we almost always do.This article is a one sided smear job that doesn't give all of the facts. I blocked the spokes council proposal until i thought they worked out the kinks, so I cannot be accused of being in league with the structure committee.) This is not representative democracy, this is each working group organizing on the ground having a say in how things are run, without having to the GA for everything. The spokesperson for each group must rotate. There is no shadowy cabal running everything like the article implies, as you all know. The structure group even withdrew their application to be considered for the council because they decided that they are not an operational working group. Please go to the comment section of this article and tell the real story because a lot of people are reading it and assuming that it is the whole truth.On 11/12/11, Bruce Wagner<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I don't like the idea of dropping democracy so fast.... in favor of a "representative democracy".
Every voice should be heard.
Every person should be allowed a vote.
I represent myself. I need no representative.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|