|
I was going to say that you can usually distinguish revolutionary conspiracy theorists from non- by the fact that non-conspiracy theorists usually advocate revolution as such, not because of the latest bad thing They did. Then it occurred to me that libertarians -- whose rule 1, 2 and 3 is 'government is necessarily bad and should be destroyed' -- love conspiracy theories more than they love gold. Maybe the situation there is that, for libertarians, government in general is thought of as a sort of conspiracy.
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
I will probably never not find it skeevy to play this 'people who agree with my political views have been scientifically proven by science to be smarter and more emotionally stable than Others' line, with the usual attendant idea that instead of engaging with people we should seek to manipulate their psychology or even their physical brains. I'm the far left Marxist, and it's the 'moderate liberals with very nuanced views' who I think are getting disturbingly close to Serbsky Institute stuff here.Funky See Funky Do posted:The closest I could come [to understanding Jones' thinking] was that ancient secret societies (The Bilderberg Group) completely dominate the world using Hegelian political philosophy in order to stay rich and powerful and to kill us all. Wait, what? Is Hegelianism explicitly part of Jones' picture or were you just using Hegel as 'guy who thought of a totally Rational State at the End of History?'
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
I agree that mental illness is probably overrepresented in the conspiracy world and many people would probably be served better by treatment than argument (Prester being an example). My problem is mostly that we've gone from conspiracy theorists to the entire political sphere: 'conservative psychology is this, Marxist psychology is that' and so on. I also tend to suspect that a lot of people with nothing really wrong with them believe all sorts of stupid poo poo. People really into conspiracies are often pretty off, but people who flirt with New Age poo poo and/or a little conspiracy thinking are probably just a bit thick. Funky See Funky Do posted:The whole conspiracy crowd has a mantra of "Problem - reaction - solution" which they contribute to Hegel. I've never read him but it's almost certainly taken out of context and oversimplified. The crux of it is that the powerful create all the world's problems, so they can then be seen to solve those problems and appear powerful or use the reaction to those problems to push through any agenda they want. Okay I see. I was a little confused because when you said 'Hegelian political philosophy' I thought of Hegel's specific work of political philosophy, The Philosophy of Right. And yes it does sound like a really stupid and lovely reading of Hegel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:the entire WORLD MONEY CONTROL thing is just another version of "Jews are controlling all our money to undermine christian democracies/capitalist systems". I'm actually curious whether Prester has any insight on anti-semitism in the conspiracy world. As far as I understand, there are more old-school, explicitly Jew-hating conspiracy theorists who attack people like Icke and Jones because 'Icke says reptiles, but it's really the Jews! Jones says New World Order, but it's really the Jews! The Jews are using them to distract us from the real culprits!'
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason I don't believe it is it falls under the supposedly Fascist ideal of "believing the enemy (i.e. CIA) is simultaneously incompetent and all powerful". computer parts posted:And the enemies of fascists were also constantly changing organizations with many members. This is also ignoring that supposedly the same people who are doing the super secret things are also doing the incompetent things (see: "CIA doing 9/11" while also being completely stupid about events in Iraq post-invasion). Umberto Eco is a brilliant guy, but I think you're reading his 'Ur-Fascism' piece in a boneheadedly literal way. Having an 'enemy' that's both dumb and clever -- dumb and clever in different parts, or on different subjects, or in different situations -- is hardly a knock-down case that 'such-and-such is fascist therefore bad!' Eco writes in the introduction that Umberto Eco posted:"In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it." Eco says that one feature is enough to 'allow fascism to coagulate around it,' but the idea is that these are features found in various sorts of organisation -- and even then not all of them -- both around fascism and 'other kinds of despotism or fanaticism'. The 14 points he makes are indications of fascism, but to go 'that's it!' every time you think you see one pinged is not the right way to take his work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 10:10
|
|