One of the odd paradoxes of the “conspiracy literature” is that although it constantly presents itself as “The most staggering thing you’ll ever read!” and “This will blow your mind!” etc. is that it very soon lapses into monotony. David Icke, possibly the “Ur-conspiracist”, writes in exactly this hyperventilating way but achieves a kind of deadly saturation within a couple of pages. It turns out that every conspiracy theory you ever heard is true. This soon merges with all that paranormal / UFO stuff and we read about Atlantis, psychic projections, the allegedly extraterrestrial origins of the human race etc. That last bit is perhaps the clue since, even if it was true, doesn’t answer the question as to how life/humanity evolved in the first place. At which point it soon becomes obvious that this extraterrestrial origin notion is a present day version of “God created the heavens” etc.
And throughout these conspiracist excursions there is a constant sloppiness regarding actual factual information that can be easily checked. (I relish Icke’s reference to “one of Debussy’s most famous operas”. Excluding unfinished projects, Debussy only wrote one opera!)
As for Max’s point that he can appear on Right Wing sites uncensored, I am convinced that this is a case of information management. “The Left” exercises more censorship because, ironically, it is the Left that is assumed – correctly I think – to be the most accurate representative of what the majority think e.g. the vast majority nowadays are actually secular and, though they may pay lip service to various religions, they instinctively respect what is supposedly scientifically validated. This was proved with a vengeance through covid where the sane and common sense evaluation of your own health through the way you feel took a back seat to what a little mark on a plastic strip supposedly showed you.
Likewise, the absurdities of transgenderism were another indication of how a substantial portion of the public were quite happy to go along with “the latest findings” about “our human nature”.
And I think the ruling class know very well that it is this general respect for science – or whatever presents itself as “The Science” – which commends the most loyal following.
Because of all this, the current formation of the “propagandist arena” is built around a separation between, on the one hand, a “Right Wing” realm which can permit any amount of uncensored scepticism – as long as it is constantly linked with “the wacky stuff” that can easily be ridiculed and, on the other hand, the “proper” “validated” stuff, presented as “Left” but only in a very limited sense and ironically lined with covid, climate, transgenderism and whatever other vehicle the ruling class want to currently use to implement their policies.
An example of this cunning bifurcation in action is that Naomi Wolf, who has been excellent in her rejection of the covid and trans nonsense, has – with seeming gratification on her part! – been “accepted into the fold” of a new conservative milieu which is handy since it gives “Leftist” approved mainstream propagandists (such as her namesake Naomi Klein) a wonderful opportunity to relish an attack on Wolf as “a loony Rightist”.
Which leads me to note that much of the “Rightist” critique of the media is actually more pertinent in identifying the old divide-and-rule policy whereby we have e.g. the “culture war”. And this works through assigning everybody to a position in which their sensibilities can be crudely constrained within a preconceived pattern: Loony Rightist conspiracy nut against that hallowed “sensible (vastly watered down) Leftist”. But even this insight into divide-and-rule has to be couched in illegitimate terminology e.g. a “Hegelian trap”.
One sobering example of the sad flattening of this anti-Marxist attitude is the work of Guido Giacomo Preparata which is incomparably more nuanced and frankly vastly more intelligent than the “conspiracy literature” – which he himself has attacked e.g. in a slogan “Conspiracy theory is too important to be left to conspiracy theorists!” Preparata’s vitriolic attack on Marxist interpretations – especially in relation to the Russian Revolution – leads you to expect a pretty impressive alternative interpretation. But it comes as a shock to find that he has nothing to offer other than a vulgar and patronising tourist-jingoist blather about “the Russian soul” and on how it was constrained by an “alien intrusion of academic Western communist” thought i.e. for all Preparata’s eloquence, he succumbs to a reductionist (and vacuous) “spiritual” outlook that results in the dreary old simplistic reactionary Arcadian elevation of capitalism.
Thanks, Cory, for calling out the Trump show for what it is, bread and circuses to keep people entertained and focused on the spectacle instead of what's real. The phrase was coined by a Roman to explain how to keep people entertained so they would not revolt at being bled dry at every turn or protest against the slaughter of their fellow human beings.
It is unsettling to hear the participants using the term "conspiracy theory," even though I am sure that nearly all of you know that the term was a CIA creation to counter skepticism of the Warren Commission Report. It has so entered the lexicon that this group of six leftists use the term without remark. John's disdain for the JFK "conspiracy industry" is unnecessarily harsh. Do we instead accept the Warren Commission narrative, after all we know about that bit of fiction writing? Ditto for the obvious patises of the MLK ("lone wolf" white racist) and RFK ("lone wolf" Palestinian) murders. Yet you are able to lump the massive amounts of research done by dedicated writers who revealed and proved to us that the FBI/CIA murdered MLK and RFK as just a "bunch of conspiracy theorists" without politics or legitimate intellectual interest in the murders?
In the case of the Trump shooting, what is the acceptable narrative, lest we descend into "conspiracy"? Max has "an inclination" that it was an authentic assassination attempt, but by a 20-year-old with no discernable politics or motivation? To fill in the blanks, one has to become a theorist, if not conspiracist, because there is no obvious narrative. Was it the DNC? Blackrock? The Clintons? Was it really a 20 year old kid who grabbed his father's rifle, borrowed a 10-foot ladder thoughtfully provided by the Secret Service (rather than use his own. 5-foot ladder purchased that day) and took a head shot at Trump, rather than simply aiming for the body where he would be more unlikely to miss? And did he arrange for police and Secret Service to ignore his presence on the roof for up to an hour, without moving Trump out of harm's way? And did he prevent the government snipers from shooting him before he took his shot? That was one crafty kid.
where did i show disdain fir the JFK assassination theories? My point was its become a cottage industry . Had you read earlier work of mine you would have known my position on this stuff. As for Trump, the issue wasnt who was behind it, but if the intention was to murder trump (as opposed to the theory he cut his own ear when he fell on the ground and this was all choreographed). I think this is clear in the discussion, but if not that was my take on it. Third, why the snarky tone?
I apologize for any perceived snarky tone, which was not my intent. Yes, I have read a great deal of your work, and listened to most of these podcasts. I support your work and the podcasts/essays, and generally am in accord with the views of most of the podcast participants.
My point in commenting was to challenge use of the CIA term, "conspiracy theory," and the apparent acceptance of it by people I admire. As a good friend would often tell me, we are allowed to believe whatever we want, but we do not get to know the truth. If we do not accept in bad faith the stories we are told, we are conspiracy theoriests. The phrase is meaningless, except as a perjorative.
One of the odd paradoxes of the “conspiracy literature” is that although it constantly presents itself as “The most staggering thing you’ll ever read!” and “This will blow your mind!” etc. is that it very soon lapses into monotony. David Icke, possibly the “Ur-conspiracist”, writes in exactly this hyperventilating way but achieves a kind of deadly saturation within a couple of pages. It turns out that every conspiracy theory you ever heard is true. This soon merges with all that paranormal / UFO stuff and we read about Atlantis, psychic projections, the allegedly extraterrestrial origins of the human race etc. That last bit is perhaps the clue since, even if it was true, doesn’t answer the question as to how life/humanity evolved in the first place. At which point it soon becomes obvious that this extraterrestrial origin notion is a present day version of “God created the heavens” etc.
And throughout these conspiracist excursions there is a constant sloppiness regarding actual factual information that can be easily checked. (I relish Icke’s reference to “one of Debussy’s most famous operas”. Excluding unfinished projects, Debussy only wrote one opera!)
As for Max’s point that he can appear on Right Wing sites uncensored, I am convinced that this is a case of information management. “The Left” exercises more censorship because, ironically, it is the Left that is assumed – correctly I think – to be the most accurate representative of what the majority think e.g. the vast majority nowadays are actually secular and, though they may pay lip service to various religions, they instinctively respect what is supposedly scientifically validated. This was proved with a vengeance through covid where the sane and common sense evaluation of your own health through the way you feel took a back seat to what a little mark on a plastic strip supposedly showed you.
Likewise, the absurdities of transgenderism were another indication of how a substantial portion of the public were quite happy to go along with “the latest findings” about “our human nature”.
And I think the ruling class know very well that it is this general respect for science – or whatever presents itself as “The Science” – which commends the most loyal following.
Because of all this, the current formation of the “propagandist arena” is built around a separation between, on the one hand, a “Right Wing” realm which can permit any amount of uncensored scepticism – as long as it is constantly linked with “the wacky stuff” that can easily be ridiculed and, on the other hand, the “proper” “validated” stuff, presented as “Left” but only in a very limited sense and ironically lined with covid, climate, transgenderism and whatever other vehicle the ruling class want to currently use to implement their policies.
An example of this cunning bifurcation in action is that Naomi Wolf, who has been excellent in her rejection of the covid and trans nonsense, has – with seeming gratification on her part! – been “accepted into the fold” of a new conservative milieu which is handy since it gives “Leftist” approved mainstream propagandists (such as her namesake Naomi Klein) a wonderful opportunity to relish an attack on Wolf as “a loony Rightist”.
Which leads me to note that much of the “Rightist” critique of the media is actually more pertinent in identifying the old divide-and-rule policy whereby we have e.g. the “culture war”. And this works through assigning everybody to a position in which their sensibilities can be crudely constrained within a preconceived pattern: Loony Rightist conspiracy nut against that hallowed “sensible (vastly watered down) Leftist”. But even this insight into divide-and-rule has to be couched in illegitimate terminology e.g. a “Hegelian trap”.
One sobering example of the sad flattening of this anti-Marxist attitude is the work of Guido Giacomo Preparata which is incomparably more nuanced and frankly vastly more intelligent than the “conspiracy literature” – which he himself has attacked e.g. in a slogan “Conspiracy theory is too important to be left to conspiracy theorists!” Preparata’s vitriolic attack on Marxist interpretations – especially in relation to the Russian Revolution – leads you to expect a pretty impressive alternative interpretation. But it comes as a shock to find that he has nothing to offer other than a vulgar and patronising tourist-jingoist blather about “the Russian soul” and on how it was constrained by an “alien intrusion of academic Western communist” thought i.e. for all Preparata’s eloquence, he succumbs to a reductionist (and vacuous) “spiritual” outlook that results in the dreary old simplistic reactionary Arcadian elevation of capitalism.
Thanks, Cory, for calling out the Trump show for what it is, bread and circuses to keep people entertained and focused on the spectacle instead of what's real. The phrase was coined by a Roman to explain how to keep people entertained so they would not revolt at being bled dry at every turn or protest against the slaughter of their fellow human beings.
It is unsettling to hear the participants using the term "conspiracy theory," even though I am sure that nearly all of you know that the term was a CIA creation to counter skepticism of the Warren Commission Report. It has so entered the lexicon that this group of six leftists use the term without remark. John's disdain for the JFK "conspiracy industry" is unnecessarily harsh. Do we instead accept the Warren Commission narrative, after all we know about that bit of fiction writing? Ditto for the obvious patises of the MLK ("lone wolf" white racist) and RFK ("lone wolf" Palestinian) murders. Yet you are able to lump the massive amounts of research done by dedicated writers who revealed and proved to us that the FBI/CIA murdered MLK and RFK as just a "bunch of conspiracy theorists" without politics or legitimate intellectual interest in the murders?
In the case of the Trump shooting, what is the acceptable narrative, lest we descend into "conspiracy"? Max has "an inclination" that it was an authentic assassination attempt, but by a 20-year-old with no discernable politics or motivation? To fill in the blanks, one has to become a theorist, if not conspiracist, because there is no obvious narrative. Was it the DNC? Blackrock? The Clintons? Was it really a 20 year old kid who grabbed his father's rifle, borrowed a 10-foot ladder thoughtfully provided by the Secret Service (rather than use his own. 5-foot ladder purchased that day) and took a head shot at Trump, rather than simply aiming for the body where he would be more unlikely to miss? And did he arrange for police and Secret Service to ignore his presence on the roof for up to an hour, without moving Trump out of harm's way? And did he prevent the government snipers from shooting him before he took his shot? That was one crafty kid.
an earlier piece by max https://www.globalresearch.ca/in-defense-of-conspiracy-theories-from-fake-news-to-the-art-world/5661632
and *conspiracy theory* IS so well known, and its history and origin, that IT DOESNT REQUIRE OR DEMAND REMARK. Which point you made yourself. Eeeesh.
where did i show disdain fir the JFK assassination theories? My point was its become a cottage industry . Had you read earlier work of mine you would have known my position on this stuff. As for Trump, the issue wasnt who was behind it, but if the intention was to murder trump (as opposed to the theory he cut his own ear when he fell on the ground and this was all choreographed). I think this is clear in the discussion, but if not that was my take on it. Third, why the snarky tone?
I apologize for any perceived snarky tone, which was not my intent. Yes, I have read a great deal of your work, and listened to most of these podcasts. I support your work and the podcasts/essays, and generally am in accord with the views of most of the podcast participants.
My point in commenting was to challenge use of the CIA term, "conspiracy theory," and the apparent acceptance of it by people I admire. As a good friend would often tell me, we are allowed to believe whatever we want, but we do not get to know the truth. If we do not accept in bad faith the stories we are told, we are conspiracy theoriests. The phrase is meaningless, except as a perjorative.
I don't think any of us lack respect for all the research that has been done on the assassinations of the 1960s. I've written several articles about them. The most comprehensive one is at this link: https://dennisriches.wordpress.com/2021/11/14/study-of-the-assassinations-of-the-1960s-a-portal-into-the-history-of-capitalism-1794/