Conspiracism as a Flawed Worldview

In another thread on ATS, I brought up the following article with someone:

Conspiracism as a Flawed Worldview: www.publiceye.org...

I think this is a very interesting article, and it has some excellent links to other articles that should be of interest to ATS members.

Here is a quote from it:

Conspiracism as a Flawed Worldview
Conspiracism as part of an anti-regime populist movement works in a different fashion. Populist conspiracism sees secret plots by tiny cabals of evildoers as the major motor powering important historical events. Conspiracism tries to figure out how power is exercised in society, but ends up oversimplifying the complexites of modern society by blaming societal problems on manipulation by a handful of evil individuals. This is not an analysis that accurately evaluates the systems, structures and institutions of modern society. As such, conspiracism is neither investigative reporting, which seeks to expose actual conspiracies through careful research; nor is it power structure research, which seeks to accurately analyze the distribution of power and privilege in a society. Sadly, some sincere people who seek social and economic justice are attracted to conspiracism. Overwhelmingly, however, conspiracism in the U.S. is the central historic narrative of right-wing populism.

I am interested to know the opinions of other forum members on this article.. please read & discuss.

What I got from this article, is someone claiming nobody was/is behind any of the common conspiracies which goes against the evidence which shows otherwise as well as events such as the Bay of Pigs and things such as MKUltra. The list can go on, pointless article which does not look at any of the facts but only gives one persons opinion.

Originally posted by Odium
What I got from this article, is someone claiming nobody was/is behind any of the common conspiracies which goes against the evidence

What evidence? The preponderance of evidence is by far on the side of the non-existance of conspiracies such as NWO, Illuminati, etc.

Originally posted by Odium
which shows otherwise as well as events such as the Bay of Pigs and things such as MKUltra.

Yes, there was a Bay of Pigs invasion... your point? Yes, the CIA admitted that MKULTRA was a real program to the Senate in the late 70's (though the facts and the conspiracy theories surrounding MKULTRA don't match). What's your point?

Originally posted by Odium
The list can go on, pointless article which does not look at any of the facts but only gives one persons opinion.

Again - what facts are you referring to? You can list undocumented conspiracy theory web sites all day long, but they (by and large) don't constitute "facts". I realize that this stuff is "fun", but when you start to believe it.... that's disturbing!

Although the conspiracy theorists of my youth (John Birch Society for one) seemed predominately right wing ("it's all a commie plot"), most conspiracy theorists of today -- if you were to use this site as an example -- seem either left-wing or populist in nature.

To me... the truth is at the bottom of the ocean locked up in an old pirates chest... the water is what the people are led to believe or is the ambiguity that cloaks the truth... not many people have the experience or aparatus necessary to dive into the ocean of information and find this treasure... but we the conspiracy theorists hold our breath to stick our head into this ocean from time to time to see what we can see.. some even go swimming in it for a short period of time to find the booty... now, people that have taken a look or gone swimming know that there are many things down at the bottom that seem like old treasure chests... we just can't get to them because the information is withheld and even if we got to it and found the treasure it's a whole nother thing to bring the stuff up to the surface... your article has denied the existance of things which I can plainly see but never prove... it tells u that the water is water and there is nothing else there... I just don't think things like the assasination of the kennedies, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the war in Iraq, even the cold war... all of these incidents benefit a certain group of people and though our perception may be flawed there is always merit in our argument because instead of just being given a picture we like to get a bunch of points and connect them with lines based on what we know and how we feel...

well i think you are right, it is a very interesting article, but i disagree with all of its critcisms. You dont have the pyramid symbol by accident.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Although the conspiracy theorists of my youth (John Birch Society for one) seemed predominately right wing ("it's all a commie plot"), most conspiracy theorists of today -- if you were to use this site as an example -- seem either left-wing or populist in nature.

Well, I honestly believe the "shift" (to the extent it's even perceptible) is one of mere spillover. Meaning the traditional "conspiracy theorists" now wield such power over the dialogue that the conspiracy theories are mainstream. When people are part of the conspiracy (meaning they're convinced politically correct gay feminist journalists with a science degree are out to get them), they see no conspiracy theory. In fact, they point at everyone not willing to do what they say and say CONSPIRATORS!!! That's part of the conspiracy too.

Really, this article is excellent missing only one key point in it's assessment of historical conspiracism. It's not left versus right. It's Authoritarians versus Libertarians. Always has been.

The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero.

The current wave of conspiracism has two main historic sources, irrational fears of a freemason conspiracy and irrational fears of a Jewish conspiracy. There are many purveyors of the conspiracist worldview and the belief structure is surprisingly widespread. Conspiracist ideas are promoted by several right-wing institutions, the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, and the Lyndon LaRouche networks. These groups are examples of right-wing populism in which conspiracist narratives such as producerism are common. In Western culture, conspiracist scapegoating is rooted in apocalyptic fears and millennial expectations. Sometimes conspiracism is secularized and adopted by portions of the political left. It is interesting to note that on both the left and the right (as well as the center) there are critics of the apocalyptic style and flawed methodology of conspiracism.

The Illuminati really were the good guys. So was America.

A "conspiracy" is any time two or more people get together to plan a given action in secrecy. I would say that "conspiracies" are the rule rather than the exception.

That said I find the seeming search for some kind of "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory" that explains everything silly. There are lots of groups out there with lots of different agendas they may or may not wish to make public. I doubt they all share one root cause.

"The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over 30 universities and institutions were involved in an 'extensive testing and experimentation' program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens 'at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.' Several of these tests involved the administration of '___' to 'unwitting subjects in social situations.' At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers."
Senator Kennedy.
U.S. SENATE, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1977
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH
AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
OF THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

MKUltra started off as being a "Conspiracy" theory, with people saying the CIA was up to it while the Government denies they were up to it. Then under the Church Committee, MKDELTA being another such project. This article seems to forget that such things were theories before they became public knowledge.

The Illuminati did exist, the question is if they still do. The idea for a One World Government has existed before, several times - Holy Roman Empire, etc, the question is if it still does.

This article goes against those facts. That people have claimed Governments were testing on them, people did not believe they would do such a thing and in the end the truth came out.

Originally posted by RANT
Really, this article is excellent missing only one key point in it's assessment of historical conspiracism. It's not left versus right. It's Authoritarians versus Libertarians. Always has been.

I think another broad generalization can be made as well.......and that the conspiracy theorist is more likely to have less of an education that the supposed conspirators....though I suppose you could find a corrolation to the intelligence and discipline of an authoritarian as opposed to a libertarian.......the difference is implied in their respective definitions(whole vs. individual)

Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent.

And that would be consistent in the subjective nature of a victim/subject and the objective nature of a 'conspirator.' One of the big points for someone making an accusation of conspriacy is how they feel and that doesn't usually carry with it a logical process. On the flip side, those who are making the money and taking the time to look at empirical data that resulted from and will determine the course of their money flow have a very structured opinion/action set up that inherently utilizes a logic.

And then you have the perpetuation of logical fallacies in the media and the myriads of other communications that operate on the provocation of chemical reactions to base instincts and the 'I feel' arguement, which will almost always get shuffled away, is the only way for those potentially being subjugated to express themselves. I believe that to be a major point, the ability of an individual to understand and determine why he/she reacts to a given set of stimulii and routine.....

As for my direct opinion of the article.........

For one, the coining of the term Conspiracism is vague and irresponsible. Lumping everyone who thinks that someone isn't quite representing reality correctly is going to quickly herd the popular mindset right back to the mainstream medias, where conspiracy is being implemented.....the author seems to be, imo, making an association to malcontent and such.........at any rate, the immediate dismissal of anyone claiming conspiracy, which is the directed inferrance the author is aiming for(check out his conclusion set), is in itself a logical misstep........

Will check out the link, but the article commits the same logical mistakes it is accusing the majority of conspiracism..........

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Although the conspiracy theorists of my youth (John Birch Society for one) seemed predominately right wing ("it's all a commie plot"), most conspiracy theorists of today -- if you were to use this site as an example -- seem either left-wing or populist in nature.

I think the historic notion of the wings of French parliament is redundant in the analysis altogether.

Conspiracies can be carried out because people with positional power use and abuse an existing system to drive a particular agenda, under a cloak of secrecy.

At a government level the environment that supports such activity has characteristics including the ability to suppress information and to deliver propaganda to elements of the populace that are prepared to swallow it.

This has nothing whatever to do with the hackneyed left wing/right wing fingerpointing playground games of ATS members.

"Conspiracy theorists", whatever they are, if they are developing their theories "scientifically", will have no left wing or right wing values in their analysis.

Play on.

Okay, everyone, let's all breathe together and plan on secretly. No written correspondence, no recording, no nothing, just casual discussions of politics, money and wars to drive our long-term plans to control the world by appearing innocent, congenial and open to all. Sshhh, don't tell that to everyone, we must keep it to ourselves!

Evil has a nice, friendly, smiling face and lend a hand to shake yours, with another hand holding a knife in its back, waiting for you to turn around.

Conspiracy theories? Bunch of phonies perpetuated by dumb phonies who read and analyze too much of everything to make such logical, conclusive evidences difficult to prove. Shhh! Those dumb phonies know what they're talking about and they have proofs! We are supposed to make them look bad and ridiculous in the eyes of the public! We get the media to pound on them and ridicule their views as crackpots!

Evil ridicule and smear you in the public's eyes relentlessly before you get the chance to strike back.

There are no such plans for us to control the world. It's too hard and difficult to do it. Too many peoples, too many things keep us busy and occupied! Shhhhh! We must not let the public know that we aren't too busy and occupied all the times, we hired peoples to do our jobs, all we have to show our public faces, nod in approval (or thumbs up) and get back to the behind-the-scene manipulations that the public cannot look into, where we would get some serious long-term planning and changing to control the world at the public's expenses.

Evil is smarter than you think. Evil is sly and clever, a great liar and manipulator. Peoples are useful pawns, merely expendable to Evil's long-term goals.

This is how the NWO Elite operate on a daily basis. They have the powers, the money, the abilities and the influence to pull it off at yours or the public's expenses.

Originally posted by RANT
Really, this article is excellent missing only one key point in it's assessment of historical conspiracism. It's not left versus right. It's Authoritarians versus Libertarians. Always has been.

That's a pretty astute point, actually. Of course, that site is pretty left-leaning, so they see things from their own viewpoint... but I think you nailed it.

Originally posted by Odium
This article goes against those facts. That people have claimed Governments were testing on them, people did not believe they would do such a thing and in the end the truth came out.

Good response. However, you're missing something critical... it's impossible to keep something totally hidden forever; MKULTRA affected a lot of people, and it was revealed. These things don't stay secret for long. Heck, Nixon & co. could not even get away with a simple burglary and you're claiming that there is a vast global conspiracy? Come on..

Originally posted by JustMe74
MKULTRA affected a lot of people, and it was revealed. These things don't stay secret for long.

Don't be fooled. MK-Ultra was revealed to have occured. I've gone through most of the documents released and the only information you get is what they were attempting to accomplish..i.e. the reasons they were doing it as well as a not HUGELY publicized legal issue way after the fact.

There were no detailed results, no elaboration on the any of their conclusions. So you kind of can hide something for a very long time if you choose what gets released and how people view it...........

The release of MK-Ultra was merely lip service of some sort.......remember, MK-Ultra was more a project on rapid induction technioques for hypnosis and long-term amnesiac effects with, in some cases, chemical interplays........'___' may have resulted in the grossest human rights violation, but it was hardly the point..........

Well, first I need to ask you a question before I display my stance:

Do you agree big business have a large say in international politics?

Originally posted by Odium
Well, first I need to ask you a question before I display my stance:

Do you agree big business have a large say in international politics?

Discretely and covertly, yes.