Anarchy: The World is Rudderless

[Brainwrong]

I liked this quote from Alan Moore:

Doing research into conspiracy theories for his work on Brought to Light, Moore came to develop his own opinions on the subject of a global conspiracy, stating that "Yes, there is a conspiracy, indeed there are a great number of conspiracies, all tripping each other up ... the main thing that I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-footreptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless."[SUP][51]

[/SUP]I also liked his description of our current socio-political state and how we're looking at it from the wrong angle...

I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice.[SUP][104]


I like the way this statement questions the listener's perception. But it seems far too much like an acid epiphany to be of any use in reality.

Out-with the frame of government, how could we possibly self govern, self police, self motivate, when, in the main; hard working, moral people would more than likely be in a minority?

Would the benefit actually be that we would get back to basics? We would delete the rat race, we would live, we would finally become truly happy and in our mose likely natural state for a human being?

Thoughts?

This is not about Moore or his views' validity, so no point in personal 'he's a fuckin' hippy' pish. Perhaps you could say that of me, I suppose.[/SUP]

 

[HenryLB]

I don't really get his logic. Wouldn't any form of government (other than anarchy) be a badly-developed form of anarchy, by his thinking? Maybe that's what he means to say, but it seems a bit muddled. Like, what would a well-developed form of anarchy look like?

From a practical point of view it seems to me that humans have always tried to impose order on their situation and have been prepared to live in exploitative, even feudal societies as long as there is some guarantee of security. So I don't think anyone's going to be welcoming an anarchistic system back again any time soon.

Totally agree with what he says about conspiracy theories. They are the preserve of people who want to think that the world is salvageable, if only we could get into the room where the Rockefellers and Rothschild's are planning it all out. I'm always amused when they cast themselves as the only ones brave enough to face the world as it "really is" when their whole view is so obviously a big comfort blanket.

 

[Brainwrong]

I don't really get his logic. Wouldn't any form of government (other than anarchy) be a badly-developed form of anarchy, by his thinking? Maybe that's what he means to say, but it seems a bit muddled. Like, what would a well-developed form of anarchy look like?

From a practical point of view it seems to me that humans have always tried to impose order on their situation and have been prepared to live in exploitative, even feudal societies as long as there is some guarantee of security. So I don't think anyone's going to be welcoming an anarchistic system back again any time soon.

Totally agree with what he says about conspiracy theories. They are the preserve of people who want to think that the world is salvageable, if only we could get into the room where the Rockefellers and Rothschild's are planning it all out. I'm always amused when they cast themselves as the only ones brave enough to face the world as it "really is" when their whole view is so obviously a big comfort blanket.

I think you're right re his take on the current situation and any other resultant situation. We could just class any situation as slightly-down-the-line 'anarchy'. What is anarchy though? So many interpretations and one person's bad anarchy is another's good anarchy.

Yep, that's how I've always viewed religion too. It's funny that conspiracy theorists are most likely to be scoffing self proclaimed atheists when all they want to do is believe too.

Jambo kants.

 

[HenryLB]

For a while I considered writing a book about conspiracy theories (or more accurately theorists) from the POV of the psychology of belief. There seem to me to be so many interesting reasons why people sign up for them.

What's really fascinating to me is how impermeable they are to reason. If you take even a brief glance at the evidence for most CTs it usually turns out to be flimsy. Why are people so keen - indeed why are they able - to believe in stuff that's so obviously illogical? Human desires run fckin deep, put it that way!

 

[egb_hibs]

I think you're right re his take on the current situation and any other resultant situation. We could just class any situation as slightly-down-the-line 'anarchy'. What is anarchy though? So many interpretations and one person's bad anarchy is another's good anarchy.

Yep, that's how I've always viewed religion too. It's funny that conspiracy theorists are most likely to be scoffing self proclaimed atheists when all they want to do is believe too.

Jambo kants.

Whether religion provides a crutch for some, as the old saw goes (it seems to alternate between fluffy comfort blanket and fiery ruler by fear as the argument demands), Christianity and Judaism seem able to view our worldly fate a lot more directly than atheist ideologies tend to.

Perhaps the belief in a hereafter fortifies people to view the here and now more unflinchingly, but the view of man as a fallen mix of battling flesh and spirit, maps pretty closely to nature and history.

By contrast secular ideologies from communism to liberalism to humanism have at the heart the notion that man is perfectable or at least fundamentally improvable, or perhaps is 'essentially good' (a completely contentless notion from an atheist pov).

As such we get over reliance on nurture explanations for things, and the belief that with the right ideas and organisation we can fundamentally 'fix' the world, or, as you say, that the world would naturally be better if it weren't for meddling cabals of some sort. Consequently we see rejection of much emerging science and the conclusions of history, religion and philosophy on human nature. We also get rejection bordering on incomprehension, that imperfect realities may be the best we can achieve. I can understand it, because otherwise there isn't much point , from those starting positions - and nihilism is pretty risible as well as destructive - but it's fundamentally delusory. You do get atheist proponents of philosophical conservatism and the tragic view of humankind, but they are less prevalent - and this is one reason liberalism has risen alongside unbelief (I suspect). Its also a reason why we can distinguish between philosophical conservatism and political conservatism whereas there is less of a divide between liberal philosophy and politics (in the american sense of the term).

ps I only limit the above to Christianity and Judaism because i don't know enough about the others and have tired of myself as well as others dumbly using 'religion' to encapsulate wholly different world views (in contexts where the specifics of the world view are important, as here).

- - - Updated - - -

For a while I considered writing a book about conspiracy theories (or more accurately theorists) from the POV of the psychology of belief. There seem to me to be so many interesting reasons why people sign up for them.

What's really fascinating to me is how impermeable they are to reason. If you take even a brief glance at the evidence for most CTs it usually turns out to be flimsy. Why are people so keen - indeed why are they able - to believe in stuff that's so obviously illogical? Human desires run fckin deep, put it that way!

I'd have bought that (the book, not the theories!)

 

[Dub]

For a while I considered writing a book about conspiracy theories (or more accurately theorists) from the POV of the psychology of belief. There seem to me to be so many interesting reasons why people sign up for them.

What's really fascinating to me is how impermeable they are to reason. If you take even a brief glance at the evidence for most CTs it usually turns out to be flimsy. Why are people so keen - indeed why are they able - to believe in stuff that's so obviously illogical? Human desires run fckin deep, put it that way!

I have a friend who thinks the moon landings were faked because "there is a layer of radiation round the earth that would disintegrate anyone who tries to go through it" I mentioned Lyca [sp] and she agrees that it [she I think] went in to space but that was alright because the radiation layer only affects humans.

Mind you she is as mad as a box of frogs and as gullible as Ms Gullible from Gullible lane in Gullible land anyway. If you tell her something remotely plausible it will become gospel in a couple of days time