What's Good for the Goose...

[mbarrick]

Conspiracy Culture Notes

It seems a commonplace paradigm in the conspiracy subculture for the ends to justify the means. My experience with a certain theorist is an excellent illustration of this. This individual has not failed on any count to use the tactics he decries and in fact to exhibit pride in the same traits in himself that he decries in the "authorities" he rails against. I'm not entirely sure if in this particular case if the behaviour is rationalized or if he is ignorant of the hypocrisy. For example, his actions in unsubscribing over fifty members from his mailing list come in retaliation, ultimately, for being unsubscribed from another mailing list himself. I believe their own hypocrisy is overlooked by the conspiracy theorists for a combination or reasons ranging from rationalization to emotive acts of personal empowerment. The rationalization is generally a simple one, "we'll do to them what they do to us", or at least what they perceive is being done to them. A further justification comes from the sort of philosophic ignorance and lack of genuine critical thought that characterizes the sub-culture. They don't see anything wrong in their use of tactics such as threats and censorship because the sense that theirs is the higher purpose. It's effectively the "God is on out side" rational used in war-time propaganda. There isn't much though about what is in fact good or evil in any philosophic sense. This would actually amount to an impediment to the third motivation, personal empowerment. By utilizing the tactics of he perceived authorities the conspiracy theorists claim the same "power" as their own. They exaggerate the scope and importance of their actions, and often justify their lack of social standing with claims of being detached from day-to-day reality because it is unimportant on the scale of the events they are exclusively in touch with. In this fashion these marginalized individuals can alleviate their personal alienation through "world changing" letters-to-the-editor, personal websites, leaflet distribution, postering and the like. In the case of the older members of the sub-culture that have failed in any substantive pursuits it becomes a diversion from the squalor, loneliness and alienation. In the younger disciples of the sub-culture it is a means of avoidance of real responsibility and hard work in providing the excuse that "they" are somehow holding the individual back. Of course the self-excused inaction of the latter leads to the failure and alienation of the former. Because the conspiracy theorist sees himself as a maverick doing vitally important world-changing work it is never a question why anyone of real power would expend effort to silence their fringe voice. The Internet has exacerbated these feelings of self-importance in the conspiracy theorists. The individuals once relegated to walking the streets with their "The End is Nigh" placards can now set up websites and mailing lists, which inevitably draw a handful of like-minded souls as well as a raft of curious onlookers from far and wide, "substantiating" the conspiracy theorists sense of "global importance".

Comments

Hmmm... Interesting

[logik.livejournal.com]

I have been a connoisseur of fine conspiracy theories over the years. That is not to say I believe them, I simply find the development of conspiracy theories fascinating. The process of the conspiracy ideology developing from simple origins to a cult phenomenon is always full of interesting revelations about human nature.

I think perhaps though that your posing is a little unfairly generalized. I will agree whole heatedly that many younger conspiracy theorists are motivated by economic and social need, because after all - it sucks to be young and poor. As these individuals develop however, frequently the conspiracy is left behind and the sensation of persecution ends (they get a real job, start making enough money to live, find a nice girl...). I suspect that those that cling to the ideology and unworkable world views as they age may have more than just the anger of youth to power their fantasy. I suspect that there may in fact be neurochemical imbalance present.

For several years in university, before I switched to comp sci, I studied neuropsychology (one day I just realized that I couldn't make a living doing it). During my travels though the dusty halls of academia, I cam across the work on Dr. Elzabeth Gould - Neurochemistry and Transformational states of Consciousness. Her thesis was that certain practices and modes of thought that are consistently practices can lead to truly remarkable alterations in brain chemistry. She had substantial evidence of this in fact. She theorized that some practices could push the brain into biochemical states that resemble schizophrenia.

With this in mind I suspect that the extreme conspiracy theorist may actually be suffering from a condition where their brain chemistry has been altered to such a degree that it interferes with their own ability to understand their own actions in a causal context. For these people they simply are unable to understand that the actions they take, that they decry in others, are a fundamental part of the framework that allows them to continue to maintain their world view. Trying to point out to them the flaws in their thinking is akin to trying to get a fish to see water in the ocean.

This is not always the case. I have read some very well researched documents and pieces of what I will term “conspiracy literature” that were extremely well put together. Few if any of there ever seem to do with aliens or secret societies, but more often than not are geared toward black ops funding and the like. They are often less conspiracy minded than an outrage at government or bank expenditures on questionable things.

In summary – I have a hard time linking “conspiracy theory culture” in my mind to the behaviors of a few zealots who may be neurochemically imbalanced. (James Shelby Downard for example). I can’t judge all Muslims b y the actions of Shite fundamentalists either. I suspect though that the rise of the Internet has allowed fundamentalists and the ill to find support for beliefs that are harmful or destructive to themsleves. On the other hand, it has also allowed some very well researched and though out analysis of interesting events to be made available to the public even the ideas conflict with the profitability or needs of the mass media or government. There must always be room for a voice of dissent, even if that voice says nothing comprehensible. We must allow for a voice of dissent, even if it spews gibberish. We need people to have the freedom to criticize Nike for the use of child labor, or McDonalds for deforestation, even if that means that we have to listen to a lot of garbage about aliens and “N-Dimensional Wars”.

It is also fun to wonder “what if” when you hear something outrageous. If nothing else they entertain us.

Re: Hmmm... Interesting

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

Excellent points. Perhaps I should be saying "Extreme Conspiracy Culture". I like the idea of chemical imbalance brought on by the thought patterns themselves. It fits well with the idea in my earlier post about a media catalyst setting everything in motion (re: the mimicry in play patterns of heavily media-exposed children vs. those with no or minimal exposure). It's documented that exposure to television at a very early age (<7 yrs) produced a strong alpha-state in the children (much more pronounced than what happens to adults). That conscious alpha-state may well led itself to developing a difficulty in distinguishing reality from near-sleep or drug-induced reveries later in life.

This is good stuff, Kim! I admit that at this point I'm making *huge* generalizations, but these are just notes toward the formulation of hypothesis. Much fleshing out is yet to be done and your input is very, very welcome. And I promise, if you shoot down any of my ideas with relevent empirical facts I won't threaten you life.