When you bill me as “from somewhere in Scotland” it makes me feel like some kind of Bond villain which is OK with me. But just for the record, I’m “from Castle Douglas in Scotland” ... more or less.
(It’s a shock to see myself since in my mind I look like Tom Cruise circa ’86!)
Perhaps the attraction to GRAND conspiracy theory (as opposed to more modest conspiracy theory which is perfectly legitimate) is that it has an unreal sheen and so is indeed comforting.
Peter Dale Scott reckoned there were three outlooks: the first is the mainstream view of generally good government and law enforcement “protecting our democracy”, the second is the grand conspiracy theory which ironically reflects the mainstream view but inverted i.e. the forces in control are dark and evil, and the third is the one that Scott refers to as “deep politics” in which there are various actors (govt, law, intelligence agencies, corporations, organised criminal gangs) which overlap and in which double agents create effects comparable to chaos theory in which the original aims can be subverted with consequences unforeseen by any of the participants.
But then Scott is definitely not a Marxist – though he once made an interesting statement in an interview: that he once rejected Marxism as being inapplicable to the USA but now thinks that Marxist notions are beginning to become relevant to the states.... which mean that they must always have been relevant.
But I feel the same lack of enthusiasm for tracing all the ins and outs of these nefarious connections as I do towards arguing over the minutiae of “evidence” re: the moon landings. The point about Scott’s “deep state” is that we know something like this goes on. One disheartening thing about conspiracy theories is the fixation on generating lists of dodgy links. Another aspect of e.g. David Icke books is the compulsive generation of these lists which I think may also appeal to minds on the autistic spectrum. Though I think it only fair to point out that Scott’s investigative analysis is on a far more practical and feasible level than Icke’s.
I think you already told me your Bob Dylan story i.e. that he seemed likeable but superficial. I think Dylan’s entire career provides an interesting insight into the 60s – an age whose true tale has yet to be told. As a fan I have a typically baroque view of all this but it possibly ventures into the picturesque. Briefly, Dylan was never political. His attraction towards Woody Guthrie was fuelled less by Guthrie’s political activism than by Guthrie’s image as a romantic traveller i.e. someone who could constantly reinvent himself by traveling around. Dylan wrote some astute pieces but nervously backed out, ceaselessly claiming that he never knew what the word “communist” meant. All this happened against a background of activism and assassination, in the light of which, Dylan’s motorbike accident of ’66 seems very convenient.
Just realised an ambiguity. When I say conspiracy theorists generate "dodgy links" I didn't mean Internet links (though they do that too!) I meant simply listing alleged connections with endless details of individuals and organisations. I reckon this is definitely an autistic trait.
“It’s more difficult to prove that it happened than to prove that it didn’t happen. Yet most will blindly defend that it 100% happened.”
The idea that you can’t prove a negative seems to be disputed. Nevertheless, if proving that it DIDN’T happy is “easier” – then how do you go about that?
One “malonth” says: “Usually a technological breakthrough yields even greater technological breakthroughs.” How “usually”? And it admits the possibility that a breakthrough may NOT yield even greater breakthrough.
Though I think one “Dave” makes sense: “Maybe the trip to the moon isn’t worth the money? What can we get from the moon that we haven’t already?”
When you bill me as “from somewhere in Scotland” it makes me feel like some kind of Bond villain which is OK with me. But just for the record, I’m “from Castle Douglas in Scotland” ... more or less.
(It’s a shock to see myself since in my mind I look like Tom Cruise circa ’86!)
Perhaps the attraction to GRAND conspiracy theory (as opposed to more modest conspiracy theory which is perfectly legitimate) is that it has an unreal sheen and so is indeed comforting.
Peter Dale Scott reckoned there were three outlooks: the first is the mainstream view of generally good government and law enforcement “protecting our democracy”, the second is the grand conspiracy theory which ironically reflects the mainstream view but inverted i.e. the forces in control are dark and evil, and the third is the one that Scott refers to as “deep politics” in which there are various actors (govt, law, intelligence agencies, corporations, organised criminal gangs) which overlap and in which double agents create effects comparable to chaos theory in which the original aims can be subverted with consequences unforeseen by any of the participants.
But then Scott is definitely not a Marxist – though he once made an interesting statement in an interview: that he once rejected Marxism as being inapplicable to the USA but now thinks that Marxist notions are beginning to become relevant to the states.... which mean that they must always have been relevant.
But I feel the same lack of enthusiasm for tracing all the ins and outs of these nefarious connections as I do towards arguing over the minutiae of “evidence” re: the moon landings. The point about Scott’s “deep state” is that we know something like this goes on. One disheartening thing about conspiracy theories is the fixation on generating lists of dodgy links. Another aspect of e.g. David Icke books is the compulsive generation of these lists which I think may also appeal to minds on the autistic spectrum. Though I think it only fair to point out that Scott’s investigative analysis is on a far more practical and feasible level than Icke’s.
I think you already told me your Bob Dylan story i.e. that he seemed likeable but superficial. I think Dylan’s entire career provides an interesting insight into the 60s – an age whose true tale has yet to be told. As a fan I have a typically baroque view of all this but it possibly ventures into the picturesque. Briefly, Dylan was never political. His attraction towards Woody Guthrie was fuelled less by Guthrie’s political activism than by Guthrie’s image as a romantic traveller i.e. someone who could constantly reinvent himself by traveling around. Dylan wrote some astute pieces but nervously backed out, ceaselessly claiming that he never knew what the word “communist” meant. All this happened against a background of activism and assassination, in the light of which, Dylan’s motorbike accident of ’66 seems very convenient.
But perhaps I’ve said too much?
Just realised an ambiguity. When I say conspiracy theorists generate "dodgy links" I didn't mean Internet links (though they do that too!) I meant simply listing alleged connections with endless details of individuals and organisations. I reckon this is definitely an autistic trait.
I assume that this is the moon landing hoax thread:
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1838268262020166030
Some dodgy thinking here. Take one “Pancho”:
“It’s more difficult to prove that it happened than to prove that it didn’t happen. Yet most will blindly defend that it 100% happened.”
The idea that you can’t prove a negative seems to be disputed. Nevertheless, if proving that it DIDN’T happy is “easier” – then how do you go about that?
One “malonth” says: “Usually a technological breakthrough yields even greater technological breakthroughs.” How “usually”? And it admits the possibility that a breakthrough may NOT yield even greater breakthrough.
Though I think one “Dave” makes sense: “Maybe the trip to the moon isn’t worth the money? What can we get from the moon that we haven’t already?”