Noted he used the word "atomized," which seems like a Hannah Arendt reference. Personally, I don't worry about conspiracies, as I'm indexed on something much more plausible and serious. To scale and really be dangerous, you need for an idea to be simple and seductive. Arendts view was the idea of truth being the enemy, and once people were unmoored from it, they could not resist the directed chaos used against them. The sufficient condition was that good men did nothing. With no truth, there was no basis or identity on which to organize.
So there is no conspiracy. Just a set of incentives to align to and sustain the narrative, and the more absurd the gymnastics, the greater the rewards, because only the powerful can afford to seem so stupid and inconsistent. In that model, absurdity becomes a status signal, because to be that stupid requires hidden power.
Imo, Poppers paraphrase had been used to justify this precise set of incentives, and I don't think he's a useful reference for insight into what's going on now. Arendt, however, nailed it.
Since reading some of the Subgenius tracts I've found my tendency to see conspiracies to be a useful internal barometer. It doesn't really matter whether I'm blaming interdimensional psychic vampires or misaligned incentives in the federal bureaucracy for not living my best life, what matters is the degree to which I've associated my problems with an external locus of control. Keeping an eye on that, and trying to get 'the conspiracy' to look less intimidating over time is a useful exercise.
External locus of control is the key idea there and can change some peoples self image. It's such an important concept. The view I have is about strategies to navigate dmeoralized environments without personalizing them, and while being able to appreciate the local pools of relative goodness when they occur.
On absurdism, part of the beauty of the show Rick and Morty is they travel to different universes that seem physically ridiculous, but there is a fairly constant moral theme in each of them that maps to a plausible human interaction that is just insane enough to be funny because each one is the expression of an human incentive iterated over time that forms a culture. It's a lot like consulting.
Yes. But the degree to which I blame my own frustrations on this or that conspiracy's machinations is the degree to which I'm not seeing the situation clearly. It's the difference between something raining on one's parade and parading in the rain.
Or as it was put to me: 'To a man with no slack, even "Bob" served the Conspiracy. To a man with "Bob"'s slack, even the Conspiracy is of service"
I would argue, moreover, that conspiracy is the very definition of capitalism: everyone competing against each other and making alliances to crush competition.
It's not disconnected from reality to consider some groups of people to have too much power and to conspire against the best interests of society at large for their own benefits. What is delusional is to link that to reptiles or illuminatis, when the people pulling the strings are the same ones we see smiling on TV: multinationals and their lobbyists, bosses unions (eg. MEDEF in France), political parties.
Some of these interest groups tend to be more secretive (eg. Bildeberg, Dîners du siècle) but they are comprised of well-known figures whose interests align, and there's certainly not a single group of people controlling the entire planet's fate. It just so happens the rich and powerful have strong incentives to unite in order to screw the rest of us.
Of course! Whether it's plots to assassinate powerful people, or police setups like Sacco & Vanzetti, or FBI's CoIntelPro infiltration, sabotage, setup and assassination program of all US revolutionary groups of the 50s/60s (Black Panthers, Young Lords, MOVE..)
If you're strictly speaking about marxism-leninism, which as an anarchist i do not recognize as a form of communism (but rather a form of State capitalism), that's also the case long before Stalin came in. Notoriously, the revolt of the Kronstadt soviet in 1921 was framed by Lenin and Trotsky as counter-revolutionary, see: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trotsky_Protests_Too_Much
However, communism as a political perspective (whether libertarian or authoritarian) promotes mutual aid and emulation as principles of organizing society, not competition. So my specific critique of capitalist mindset/education/system as a major factor in the development of actual conspiracies does not really apply to communist ideas in themselves.
>The conspiracy theorist will believe that institutions can be understood completely as the result of conscious design; and as collectives, he usually ascribes to them a kind of group-personality, treating them as conspiring agents, just as if they were individual men. As opposed to this view, the social theorist should recognize that the persistence of institutions and collectives creates a problem to be solved in terms of an analysis of individual social actions and their unintended (and often unwanted) social consequences, as well as their intended ones.
and in between is the systems theorist who observes the emergent behavior (which is nor "conspiring" (despite sometimes displaying intelligence-like elements), nor generally directly reducible to the "individual actions") of the systems.
Truth and lies are functions of life, mental machinations of survival.
Especially in politics, since it is the game of power over human ressources, wich are at last the most important ressources of survival for a highly intelligent social organism.
Find a copy of Hannah Arendts article 'Truth and Politics'
Well more than public thinkers and conspiracy theorists which there is no dearth off, what is missing are people who are consistent nuisance to the powers that be. Not in TV studios or the twttersphere. But on the ground.
The powers thats be dont care what Snowden says. They dont see him as a problem anymore. Cause he is not on the board anymore.
Gandhi too would write a whole lot, to process what he was going through, and grasp at whatever he could find to convince himself he wasnt nuts for taking a stand, just like Snowden.
But the difference is, he didnt just retire into "public thinker" mode. He would pick a sensitive case, head straight to the center of action, court arrest and cause the entire state to shutdown. The Rowlett Act was no big diff to what Snowden is protesting. But Gandhi got the brits to bend.
Can you imagine what happens if Snowden sneaks back into the US and courts arrest by the Dems while they chant about defending privacy, and ideally does it exactly when some inevitable privacy/data exploitation related fiasco happens?
But that wont happens cause he has decided to become a social media influencer, oh sorry public thinker, just like the rest of America.
>what is missing are people who are consistent nuisance to the powers that be
Assange was one of them, and look what happened to him.
>Can you imagine what happens if Snowden sneaks back into the US and courts arrest by the Dems while they chant about defending privacy, and ideally does it exactly when some inevitable privacy/data exploitation related fiasco happens?
The news would cover the arrest, he would go to jail, and after a couple of months there would be a short news item about how Snowden was convicted under the Espionage act and sentenced to life in prison.
There is no way to do a public interest defence when you are charged under the espionage act, so the outcome would be a forgone conclusion, and I don't see the mainstream media being interested in that fact.
If you look how little coverage there is of the actual details of the Assange case (or the Donzinger case for that matter) in the mainstream media, it is clear to me that there is no way Snowden would get anything done by facing 'justice'.
There would be some reporting on the fact that it happened, but there would be no reckoning or analysis of root causes (outside of places like Democracy Now).
> There is no way to do a public interest defence when you are charged under the espionage act
Of course there is. At a trial, whether you lay legal arguments or political arguments in your favor is not a matter of what the law says precisely. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_defense
As far as I understand it there really isn't, at least you could defend yourself that way, but it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents, which is hard to dispute. I'm not a lawyer so would love to be refuted on this.
>Although Snowden’s revelations exposed a disturbing expansion of surveillance powers by the National Security Agency, the Espionage Act does not allow the public interest in the information disclosed to be considered as a defense or in mitigation of penalty, and does not require proof of harm or intent to harm. U.S. law is significantly out of step with other democracies concerning penalties (see Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure of National Security Related Secrets [PDF]) and available defenses (see study of 20 European countries [PDF]).
>Procedurally, prosecution under the Espionage Act is problematic due to the nature of evidence related to national security matters and the elements required to prove unlawful disclosure of classified information. Relevant evidence may be considered classified, and thus concealed from the defendant, making a fair trial inaccessible. As applied to the disclosure of classified information, the Act is problematic because it disregards intent, a typical element required for conviction of many criminal offenses. As such, it does not protect whistleblowers who provide journalists with information in order to expose illegal government actions, rather than to aid foreign countries in injuring the United States. Because national security is at issue, the standard is low.
> it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents
Well, it's just like for any other "crime". But to my knowledge, there's very few laws and legal systems where having broken the law forces the judge to condemn you (otherwise no judge would be needed!). Here in France, Sarkozy then Macron tried to pass such "peines planchers" (minimum sentences) but so far we've avoided that kind of dystopian catastrophe where nobody's interested in the context and reasons for actions (which is like the opposite of "justice").
In the meantime, you may be found non-guilty of a "crime" you have committed, despite the judge recognizing you have acted against the law. This is a common occurrence in political trials, and whatever our opinions of that is, is a foundational aspect for all "civil disobedience" movements. I am not a lawyer, but i am an activist, and have witnessed many trials including political trials: whatever sentence you receive (or don't) is never directly related to the offense you're accused of, there's a lot of social/political factors coming into play.
That's also why a lot of people are condemned on bogus charges despite ample evidence that they were setup by police. For example, it's really common in France for people who were victims of police abuse to be trialed and condemned for "rébellion" and "outrage" (insults to an officer/institution), even when the testimonies of cops directly contradict one another and the only person with wounds at the trial is the person on the stand. To take another example, Zone d'Expression Populaire (ZEP) was initially condemned for criticizing/insulting France's (neo-)colonialism in a song called Fuck France (Nique la France), but they pleaded for their "right to insolence" and were finally acquitted from all charges during the appeal. It can go both ways, the point is whatever sentence you receive is NOT determined by what technically happened and how it technically breaks the law.
It seems to me that Indians on average cared a lot more about independence than Americans on average care about freedom from the government spying on them, so I am not sure that Snowden coming back to America would really change much. I think that Snowden has already done more for Americans' freedom than almost anyone else in the world has done and I think that it is understandable if he would rather continue to live outside America rather than risk himself for the hope of changing things further. His initial revelations faded from the media spotlight within months. Even the potentially explosive Epstein case and Epstein's death faded from the media spotlight within months. It is hard for me to imagine that Snowden coming back to America would be likely to accomplish much more than what his initial revelations accomplished. Plus, it is possible that his continued freedom will actually inspire more future activists than him losing it would.
The solution, in this case, would be to come home and face the grand jury before arguing infront of the supreme court.
To be honest, that path does hold a certain academic interest, despite it being impractical. It would surely 'make a difference', is clearly not what the prosecution would like to happen.
And let me add this. The social media sites like reddit/twitter/hackernews act as places to 'safely contain' people with such potential.
Because it gives them the feeling of doing something, but its effects does not cross out into the real world. Even if it come down to that, these people can be quickly silenced in the online world, and they wouldn't know what to do, apart from commenting/tweeting..
As someone said, it's humanly to make mistakes, but to really fuck it up, you need computers. Ah the gift of the internet!
The term "conspiracy theory" is itself an apophenic simplification serving to render intelligible the maelstrom of conflicting data about the spectrum of intangibles lying between proven corporate and governmental crime at one end and inexplicable societal ills at the other.
It’s probably an example of the Baader-Meinhof effect¹ but I’d never heard the term “apopenia” until I read “A Game Designer’s Analysis Of QAnon”² a couple of weeks ago. Despite not being a gamer and not being familiar with all the different types of game mentioned in the article, I thought it was an excellent analysis of how conspiracy theories take hold.
What do you mean by Snowden's post? He didn't make a post. He handed over classified material to journalists, who made decisions about what was in the public interest to publish in their newspapers.
Maybe in the years since he's written a blog or an article in the news (he's given a number of speeches or attended events), but that wasn't how he blew the whistle to the public on the fact that the NSA was wiretapping the entire Internet, including the communication of ordinary Americans.
I read the blog post, but not the URL (Do browsers show the full URL any more?). I scrolled directly down to the content. I didn't realize he was the author.
He's a surprisingly insightful author, then.
The first post in the series (this is the second) makes it clear that this is part of his personal story:
So there is no conspiracy. Just a set of incentives to align to and sustain the narrative, and the more absurd the gymnastics, the greater the rewards, because only the powerful can afford to seem so stupid and inconsistent. In that model, absurdity becomes a status signal, because to be that stupid requires hidden power.
Imo, Poppers paraphrase had been used to justify this precise set of incentives, and I don't think he's a useful reference for insight into what's going on now. Arendt, however, nailed it.