Anyway… While I was plumbing the depth of Lucifer and Ahriman, Tim was as usual blowing the fucking roof off with all kind of great questions, and as usual convincing people to do all his work for him. I’m telling you. Bastard. But at least I don’t have Chaos magicians burning pictures of me on altars dedicated to Cthulhu…
I was especially fascinated by a strand related to ‘meta’ conspiracies. Who creates them, who co-opts them, and who co-opts the co-opters, and in particular, which ones are played out, boring and stupid.
That’s a really fascinating question: the idea that some conspiracies are ‘played out’. To me, if it’s possible that a conspiracy theory can be played out, implies that it never existed in the first place. If people don’t care enough to see it through to the end, then how important was it? Makes those of us who play in the field look like dilettantes, don’t it?
Which is fine. Nobody said it had to be life and death. Who did what to who and why and who hid the evidence for such and such can get pretty fucking tedious. To me, the exact way a murder is committed isn’t all that important, or even the why. What matters in that there was a murder. What matters is that was somebody’s life. And if you take that logic to another level, does it really matter how or why our world has been deeply twisted, the things we hold dear violated? Not really. What matters is that it did happen. It’s still happening. It’s not somebody else’s life. It’s all of our lives.
I think it’s easy to forget history. It’s easy to dismiss something as ‘theory’. Let’s take something like the trilateral/bilderberg/rockefeller/international bankers. I’m going to assume you’ve seen the money masters, and you’ll have noticed that 150, 100 , even 75 years ago, this was not a theory at all. It was a fact of life. It was a hard fought struggle to keep central banks from solidifying control of the monetary system for as long as possible. The average person suffered through engineered currency shortages to influence public opinion. Presidents, and public figures talked plenty about this, at the time, and there are long quotes in the program to that effect. Not a theory. It’s our history. Is that played out? Is it played out because it doesn’t matter anymore, because we’ve given up, or because we don’t know anything different? Is it just old enough that everyone left to talk about it today is bought and paid for?
Listen to some Noam Chomsky, where he talks about the history of the labor movement. We tend to talk about corporate corruption and abuse as if it were something new, but it’s not. If anything it used to be worse. Do you see union organizers being beaten to death in the street these days? Nope. Is it because business is kinder, people are happier, or is it that there’s no one worth beating to death anymore? At least in North America, anyhow.
Which brings me to Haiti, and a talk by Stan Goff, who writes great stuff for From the Wilderness. The things I’m talking about are not a theory to the people in Haiti, and it’s not a different kind of thug calling the shots over there. It’s the same thugs running things right here. So why aren’t there death squads on my street? Are Haitians really that different than me? It’s tempting to think so. If you listen to nothing else, listen to Stan say this:
Everyone talks about Haiti: the poorest nation in the western hemisphere…We had an electoral coup d’etat in this country, in the year 2000, and we complained for about three days, and then everybody went to the mall. When they had a coup d’etat in Haiti, they set things on FIRE. Who’s the poorest nation? The people who go to the mall, when their soveriegnty is snatched from them and their constitution is thrown in the trash, or the people who fall out in the streets? Who’s the poorest nation?
I know this is the third time I’ve mentioned it, but you really should listen to this Cornell West talk if you haven’t already. In this case I recommend it not just because of his invocation of Socratic questioning which I think is indispensable in this game, but also for his passionate dedication to justice. To what he calls the prophetic, to not just question, but to stand alongside those who suffer and shed tears. To recognize in our actions and our thoughts that if we will not stand for justice, then there will be none. If we will not stand for truth, then we dishonor the powers that created us.
He talks about Socrates himself, and how it is never recorded that he ever shed a tear. Never cried. The man who argues but never cries. Are we in danger of becoming those who argue so much, but forget to cry? And if so then why?
Maybe it’s because we’re bought and paid for, so we have the luxury to treat our history as if it were a theory.