Hope this isn't too much flamebait for a first post, but here goes...
Why bother entertaining 'conspiracy theories'? Besides the obvious stigma attatched to calling something a conspiracy theory (i.e. own over 20 copies of Catcher in the Rye, etc.), what value do these theories really hold? I'm asking this because on the front page of this forum, I see one 9/11 conspiracy theory, one about AIDS, and another rather active post about a nuclear attack against Iran. What good comes of these musings or microanalyses, in terms of a real politics or political stance? Isn't the conspiracy theory simply the consolation of the defeated, who takes comfort in the fact that she knows what 'really happened' or that however horrid a situation is, it's even worse because there's a devious set of masterminds controlling the whole thing? A quote, which I'm sure several here have seen:
In both of these cases, doesn't it seem that the conspiracy theory is simple antiquarianism? Isn't the holocaust denier much the same as the person who has collected scrap upon scrap of evidence to try to show that a 757 never hit the pentagon? Perhaps the 9/11 attacks were US government orchestrated for whatever reason, and perhaps the Holocaust was a conspiracy orchestrated by whomever as well. In either case, we lose sight, when we attempt to battle in the tiny minutiae, of any real truth that can be extracted from the situation.
Zizek has a similar bit in one of his lectures, if I recall, where he says that the moment that you get into a debate with a holocaust denier, you've already lost. You've conceded something at the moment you consider his pathology (pathological even if he's 'right') worth rational debate. This seems to be the difference between 'facts' and truth. What the former may give us is only further ground to argue, more fuel for our fire. However, the important thing would seem to be asserting a truth which explains the situation with regard to its consequences, what now is to be asserted, to be done, so that this sort of thing cannot happen again or so that we can approach the more serious, deeper rooted injustices, no?
Maybe this is too hasty, too idealistic even, but what virtue is there in approaching these huge situations with a magnifying lens to find out who did what where and what shadow-council of 20 controls the world when the greater injustices, the structural forces in one sense, are really the problem? Granted, even with that recognition there still comes the question of how to enact any meaningful change, but it would seem to me, ultimately, the only relevant means of going about 'doing' politics in any sense.
Well, pardon the rant and take pity on a first time poster, but that's my two cents, so to speak.
Why bother entertaining 'conspiracy theories'? Besides the obvious stigma attatched to calling something a conspiracy theory (i.e. own over 20 copies of Catcher in the Rye, etc.), what value do these theories really hold? I'm asking this because on the front page of this forum, I see one 9/11 conspiracy theory, one about AIDS, and another rather active post about a nuclear attack against Iran. What good comes of these musings or microanalyses, in terms of a real politics or political stance? Isn't the conspiracy theory simply the consolation of the defeated, who takes comfort in the fact that she knows what 'really happened' or that however horrid a situation is, it's even worse because there's a devious set of masterminds controlling the whole thing? A quote, which I'm sure several here have seen:
-Badiou, St. Paul
In both of these cases, doesn't it seem that the conspiracy theory is simple antiquarianism? Isn't the holocaust denier much the same as the person who has collected scrap upon scrap of evidence to try to show that a 757 never hit the pentagon? Perhaps the 9/11 attacks were US government orchestrated for whatever reason, and perhaps the Holocaust was a conspiracy orchestrated by whomever as well. In either case, we lose sight, when we attempt to battle in the tiny minutiae, of any real truth that can be extracted from the situation.
Zizek has a similar bit in one of his lectures, if I recall, where he says that the moment that you get into a debate with a holocaust denier, you've already lost. You've conceded something at the moment you consider his pathology (pathological even if he's 'right') worth rational debate. This seems to be the difference between 'facts' and truth. What the former may give us is only further ground to argue, more fuel for our fire. However, the important thing would seem to be asserting a truth which explains the situation with regard to its consequences, what now is to be asserted, to be done, so that this sort of thing cannot happen again or so that we can approach the more serious, deeper rooted injustices, no?
Maybe this is too hasty, too idealistic even, but what virtue is there in approaching these huge situations with a magnifying lens to find out who did what where and what shadow-council of 20 controls the world when the greater injustices, the structural forces in one sense, are really the problem? Granted, even with that recognition there still comes the question of how to enact any meaningful change, but it would seem to me, ultimately, the only relevant means of going about 'doing' politics in any sense.
Well, pardon the rant and take pity on a first time poster, but that's my two cents, so to speak.
Last edited:
