Well, Atrios has a good answer to that:
It pains me to even address this seriously, but… At one time, yes, there were justifications for aligning the “political Left” with “communisim” and then you’re a hop skip and a jump away from associating them with being “pro-USSR” and “pro-Stalin.” Now, as history progressed those associations were less and less valid until they became totally invalid.
But, now our new scary enemy, “radical Islam,” has the good fortune of having nothing to do with the political left as we pretty much love our promiscuity, gay sex, abortions, and banning aall [sic] religion whenever possible – especially those religious which get in the way of the aforementioned promiscuity, gay sex, and abortion.
So, just shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Jérôme | Feb 13 2005 22:17 utc | 1
just a few words on paranoia –
a paranoid’s worldview sees the hand of an enemy in events, which he perceives as intentional acts designed to harm him
obviously, it is possible to be too paranoid, and to overinterpret the coherence of historical events and see connections that aren’t really there – and to blame many events on a vast conspiracy – the jews, the illuminati, the communists, the jesuits , the “greys”
on the other hand, it is also possible to miss the coherence that is really there – to be oblivious or to have “false consciousness”
it’s not easy to know what’s really going on, and everyone applies a bayesian approach – we evaluate the probability of new information being accurate based on what we already believe
i try to stick to the middle way – to be appropriately suspicious – the goldilocks principle – neither too much nor too little
as i’m sure most of us here recognize, there really ARE conspiracies – a relatively large number, some working together, some at cross-purposes
at “all spin zone” there’s been a discussion of the “paranoid shift” – a change of weltanschauung when a person begins to believe that some of the events of recent history really are connected in ways that have been concealed (recall that bush’s first choice to chair the 9/11 commission – a commission he hadn’t wanted in the first place – was henry kissinger)
woody allen said we stand at a crossroads – one way leads to despair, the other to total destruction – let us hope we make the right choice
Posted by: mistah charley | Feb 13 2005 22:52 utc | 2
I really don’t make the connection between the modern progressives and the former USSR. There is none. What I would like is the peace dividend that was supposed to happen after the cold war making spending money on domestic issues easier. But, since the modern right don’t like big government (ha,ha) the way to keep the sheeple in line is another boogy man. Those idiots at Instapundit just don’t get it. We do want government for the people. Plutocrats want our government for themselves.
After years of being scared to death by the supposed nuclear war between the USSR and US, we finally had a chance to just mellow out. But that meant actually paying attention to the US itself. The plotcrats don’t like that. The people will then want social justice. We have to much already.
One thing that Ascher is right about is the Dem party forgot it’s base. The working man. Progressives can’t do that.
On conspiracies. Do I believe there are conspiracies? Yes to some extent. But it more like social and economic Darwinism. The CFR and Trilats believe it is their duty to oversee the sheeple. As John D Rockefeller said, he wouldn’t be where he was if not for the cream rising to the top. He believed the poor were where they are by devine providence. The CFR and Trilats are membered by invitation only. Many of the corporate, media, NGO and political elite are in these organizations. That is why many suposedly on the left and right agree on many foreign policy and trade issues and the media chime alone because they faign all over the elites they can be in the room with. You don’t really believe some auto worker in Michigan thought, you know, a “North American Free Trade Agreement” and “General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade” would reall be a good idea.
This stuff all come out of the foriegn policy circles back as far as the 1920s. Interdependence has been a foriegn policy goal for ages.
Now, are these people really for democray, or has the crazy left gave up on democracy? The opposite is true for both. The progressives want more democracy but this would reduce the power of plutocrats. As Holly Sklar said, the late 50s, 60s and 70s scared the elite so they wanted less democracy. The plutocrats have to use democracy as a cause and at the same time economic domination and “bringing rogue nations into the ‘family of nations'” is the real goal. Democracy is just window dressing.
OK, have at it.
So, Ascher and Simon at Instapundit are being duped, bottom line.
Posted by: jdp | Feb 13 2005 23:45 utc | 3
Me, I believe in one conspiracy and one conspiracy only, at least when it comes to all things Rovian….that of expediency. How else to explain the role of Robert Ford in today’s38th resurrection of Cha-Cha ChaBlabbi?
And regarding paranoia…..just because you are doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
> Berlin Wall’s orphans
“dead enders”, “bitter enders”, “baathist remnants”, …
this ascher person knows how to hash different and unrelated things together and cook up a thick syrup of conceit and semi-wrongs out of it, then go and squirt this on his opponents shirt. a dignified ann coulter competitor.
somehow i see myself as one of those he tags “berlin wall orphans” in that i identify rather with the left spectrum, but that is about it. the view of europe and the european left he expresses is as otherworldly as can be in my eyes.
funny that he would compare the europe and US economies but fail to see the sorrow state of the US economy despite its superior “competitiveness”.
the bit about radical islam as an ally of the european left is the weirdest thing i’ve ever read. radical muslims are looked askance at, if they are tolerated at all and not deported.
funny how lefties would ally with some of the most reactionary people on earth just to go after the US, like the US is important enough for lots of people here to find bad company or to compete with the USGov in doing something they themselves are much better at. of course there is a different quality of dialogue with islam, islamic countries and the islamic minorities here. perhaps the main thing that makes for this different quality is that european countries are not, or to a lesser degree, viewed as propping up murderous regimes. of course, guantanamo is also not a european feature, and that may also help in making europe a dialoue partner to the intelligentsia of muslim/arab countries and their minorities here.
since he names the integration of same minorities, of course it is not easy but for all the problems i guess most european countries are managing that that pretty well w/o the need for guantanamo and demonization of them all. we, and here i arrogate to myself to speak for all EU countries, are quite good at finding workable solutions to the issue of integration of minorities, and not only the muslim ones. so mr. ascher shut the fuck up (i second atrios here).
funny that he did not mention the euro as the diabolical tool of us “berlin wall orphans” to destroy the US. i suppose that going near the truth for the state of the US economy and the relative success of the european economic zone – despite all its limitations and troubles – must be anathema to this particular rightist. the notion that despite the “better competitiveness” the US economy is losing jobs at a pace of p’haps 100K a month and that many countries are looking at the euro as an alternate “world currency” to the saggy-breasted dollar must fucking hurt this bumbling bumpkin.
Posted by: name | Feb 14 2005 1:14 utc | 5
This stuff is pure shit. And it’s hard to even read this shit. I decided my time is too valuable to me to spend it reading this scam. And to manipulate people as “stupid” as most of them are is actually very easy, I told you before. It’s same EVERYWHERE. One only needs propaganda machinery to sell what ever shit he wants.
Those people live on different planet than us. They may even believe what they write but that doesn’t make them any less rotten.
Unfortunately there is no organized power on our side. We don’t have propaganda machinery in our hands and our most visible people are corrupted. That’s why things are so desperate.
It will not stop until big “bang” and destruction of all values that west civilization achieved. At least in pro-American world.
I may go back to Europe at some point if things become unbearable. Unfortunately this beautiful country where I live now is heading American way all tho not that radically at this point. But I don’t have a good feeling about future. There is a price to be paid all tho it could be some decades from now…Maybe I am too optimistic because things are progressing fast nowadays…
I actually do not consider my self really leftist…but hey , I have eyes to see and ears to hear…and they are pushing me so I may end up FAR left in the end…
Posted by: vbo | Feb 14 2005 2:09 utc | 6
They have only things to destroy, and all those things are personified in the US, in its very existence. They may, outwardly, fight for some positive cause: save the whales, rescue the world from global heating and so on. But let’s not be deceived by this: they choose as their so-called positive causes only the ones that have both the potential of conferring some kind of innocent legitimacy on themselves and, much more important, that of doing most harm to their enemy, whether physically or to its image.
Insane.
All this time I did not understand that I was not really concerned ‘global warming’. That was merely a Freudian cigarre of my subconsciousness’ anxieties.
(BTW, AFAIK the whale hunter nations are Norway and Japan, not the US. How’s the damage?)
Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Feb 14 2005 2:44 utc | 7
OK, just who the fuck are these idiots from “europundits”? These guys just do sound like a group of complete nutcases straight from an asylum – which means they’d sound like reasonable conservatives to Americans, but as fringe and dangerous lunatics to any decent European.
Actually, I have trouble believeing that these idiots are really Europeans, or even live in the EU. Maybe some EU expats that lived in Texas since Reagan became president. Or just White House-paid goons like that Armstrong fella.
When the Revolution will come, there will be a lot of people against the wall in pretty much every country 😉
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 14 2005 2:55 utc | 8
And to pinpoint other gaping holes in his deluded thinking process:
* Tony Blair is from the Left.
* Chirac is from the Right!
* President Kwasniewski (Poland) is from the Left again.
How does this Ascher guy explain this? Can he?
Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Feb 14 2005 3:01 utc | 9
So, Ascher and Simon at Instapundit are being duped, bottom line.
No, they’re just being their normal asshattish selves.
No mystery at all.
Posted by: fourlegsgood | Feb 14 2005 4:26 utc | 10
You know, back in the day, the fiercest opposition to communist parties came from social democrats, not conservatives.
Posted by: idook | Feb 14 2005 4:34 utc | 11
nothing new. the loony right has always been quick to accuse any and all progressive activists of being “tools,” “fellow travellers,” “dupes,” “pawns,” “agents” or whatever of the Red Menace. now they’ve run out of Red Menace, so anyone who disagrees with them has to be the dupe, pawn, tool, etc of the bad guys du jour who happen to be (this week) the radical Islamists.
so all progressive activists now have to be Tainted by association (no matter how mindbogglingly unlikely) with radical Islam. because anyone who disagrees with the Booster Club is just plain Bad, and all Bad people are on the same side don’cha know.
so, f’rexample, those married (to each other) women in Vermont whose maple sugar farm was far too evil and subversive to be shown on PBS — why, they are secret agents of the super-radical Islamic world! a world in which they would, in real life, be stoned or have their hands cut off or something. and this makes sense on Planet Paranoid, but no place else.
you know the old saying “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” well, the rightwingnuts have a marvellous variation on that, which Ascher’s drivel exemplifies: “All my enemies must necessarily be friends of each other, they are all in cahoots.”
also, an excellent way of depowering the force of someone else’s argument is to accuse them of making the argument not for its actual content, but as a smokescreen for some hidden agenda. i.e., “Yeah, you say XYZ but I know this is only because you want to Blah blah blah.” this absolves the accuser of actually having to deal with the content of XYZ.
imho Ascher is either diagnosably unbalanced, or merely another professional hatemonger like Coulter. these people don’t necessarily believe all the drivel they write: they’re being well paid.
I wish I were paid to write these things. It’s so easy…
Posted by: Jérôme | Feb 14 2005 8:37 utc | 13
Quote:
Actually, I have trouble believeing that these idiots are really Europeans, or even live in the EU.
***
You can bet on it…
Posted by: vbo | Feb 14 2005 9:55 utc | 14
Quote:
Actually, I have trouble believeing that these idiots are really Europeans, or even live in the EU.
***
You can bet on it…
Nelson Asher, who wrote that piece THE BERLIN WALL’S REVENGE, is a Brasilian journalist/poet/translator who also lived/lives in France.
The blogname Europundits, where Ascher is the main author, is of course a variant of Instapundit with just the same ideology. Europe does have its fair share of these people too, but they are not mainstream and I hope they will not become such.
Bernhard / vbo: I’ve read a bit of that drivel, and looked at some of the sewage, errr, sites they link to, and frankly I hope for Europe’s sake these guys remain a bunch of lone loony crackpot nutjobs, because the blind, slavish and disgusting postings of some make Quisling and Laval look like heroes of anti-nazi resitance.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 14 2005 12:41 utc | 16
Fourlegs, your right duped wasn’t a good word, delusional, warped, wacko fascist. Those fit better.
But who is the Bob Simon linked from Instapundit. Is it Bob Simon from the LA Times who appears on Lou Dobbs or Bob Simon from CBS news or neither?
Posted by: jdp | Feb 14 2005 13:08 utc | 17
@4lg
Define asshattish for me. The term seems to be central to your argument but to this clueless hermit it lacks a specific definition.
Thanks
Posted by: rapt | Feb 14 2005 15:22 utc | 18
There we go again, the same story all over. However, I am not sure it can be considered a conspiracy, but who knows.
CNN’s Nuke Plant Photos Identical for Both Iran and N. Korea!
Two stories posted in the last week on the CNN website, one on nukes in Iran last Wednesday, and another on nukes in North Korea on Saturday, both use the same aerial photograph of the same purported nuclear power plant!
But one is supposed to be in Iran and the other is supposed to be in North Korea!
A story posted Saturday to CNN’s website suggesting that North Korea is rallying behind their leader Kim Jong Il in his latest nuclear saber-rattling makes use of a satellite photo described in the caption as “An aerial photo of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear plant outside of Pyongyang”.
Posted by: Fran | Feb 14 2005 17:06 utc | 19
Fran – cute… (maybe the plant is actually in Montana?)
Posted by: Jérôme | Feb 14 2005 17:52 utc | 20
Jeez, Fran, looks like North Korea and Iran are linked up in some kind of nuclear proliferation conspiracy.
Posted by: Bill Kristol | Feb 14 2005 18:08 utc | 21
Ascher (Europeans and Leftists, the top post right now, not the Piece Billmon linked to, which is called the Berlin’s Wall Revenge) reinforces many stereotypes that are served to Americans.
—“Though the press and the media are still free in much of Europe, they’re not independent anymore.”
That doesn’t make much sense. No press is entirely ‘free’ (whatever that might be), and few newspapers world-wide are ‘independent’ in the sense of owned by a family or small group who alone produces the paper. There *are* a few left. What matters is the quality (hard to define) of the reporting and articles. The EU press is so varied it is hard to make a blanket judgment, but most knowledgeable Americans who can read another language praise it. (They may be misguided, natch.) Similarly, Americans often praise the BBC, say it is great, etc.
— Europeans are paid (bought off, paid off with jobs, prestige, etc.) by the by the State so won’t critisise it (though they used to.)
That is simply untrue, and confused. The French, for ex, regularly demonstrate against their Gvmt. in absolutely massive demonstrations, and the Canard Enchainé is still going strong. The ‘big gov’ accusation should be aimed first at the US. Of course, the demos. are often used to castigate France – the workers are lazy. (Turn to the professional literature and productivity statistics – there are many surprises to be found there, particularly concerning China and Bangladesh.) Also, one has to ask, if the state is so generous, where does it get the money to buy off all these guys? From taxation, of course. Where does the tax come from? And who pays more tax, your middle class US employee, or the German/French etc. one? What services do they get for their tax dollars? Acceptable, free schooling to the Doctoral level and universal health care (of a sort) are considered great boons.
— But Europeans were never particularly fond of Jews, not of the living ones anyway.
A scurrilous slur along the “they are all anti-Semites” lines. Examples: No one has done more for the Jews than Germany, for ex. – in fact it has done so much that the US has regularly, and quite desperately if covertly, tried to stop it funding Jews who emigrate to Germany (from ex USSR) – the US wishes these people to emigrate to Israel – sadly, the German package is far better. I. Singer recently accused CH, once again,of ‘immorality’ (for being neutral in WW2). The official (and on the ground) Jewish community objected, sotto voce, but backed off from demanding an offical or written apology.
— “Does anybody really think that Parisians love to live in 20 square meter decaying flats instead of in a large suburban house, that they feel happier in their stinking, rat-infested subway than they would in a large car with a powerful air-conditioner?”
To top it all off, the French are dirty and poor! Yuck! But how can that be if they are being paid illegitimate goobs by a State who pays them off? (Look at stats of standard of living in France, US, Holland, others..)
Just one remark about air conditioning. Where I live it is forbidden (exceptions: Supermarkets, Hospitals, a few others.) Why? Uses energy uselessly.
–”Europeans simply want to live like Americans. But they cannot, because, among other things, they like to work less and less.”
Well they may like to work less. Who knows? Do they, in fact, work less? The answer is not really, and many others work far far more than either the US or EU countries (Japan, Singapore, etc.)
NationMaster
This article by Ascher is a soup of nasty prejudice and EU-bashing of the lowest kind – taken like that it is interesting. It is not worthy of serious consideration, except as a propaganda piece, cheap pandering to lost souls who need a boost, want to dismiss others to feel righteous and good, ignoring reality. It has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories – which may be totally wacky, for sure. A post like that resembles USSR prop. at its worst! All people will be fed, cared for, loved, by the Communist State — und so weiter….Or by the Glory of Amerika and The Free Market!
I realise it was not the post Billmon linked to, which is the next one down. It has been treated above; I just clicked and got stuck..
Open doors, rant, Scusi!
Posted by: Blackie | Feb 14 2005 18:45 utc | 22
Pointless Paranoia among Petty Officialdom
so now it’s a “suspicious” act to take a photograph in a public transit station. in San Francisco no less.
anyone remember Moscow during the “good old days,” when tourists had better take pictures only in designated picture-taking areas?
Blackie: If Ascher only has Brazilian citizenship, the EU may be interested in kicking him out. It shouldn’t be that hard, and they do it each day with countless people from 3 world nations.
Beside, Singer is a funny bloke, but I suppose that bashing the US for making money with hitler during most of the way, including the preznit’s granddad, and for turning back thousands of Jewish refugees during WWII would be a bit too much, wouldn’t it?
As for Americans, by contrast, being fond of Jews, I guess he hadn’t spoken with Jews living in the states before WWII, including NYC.
DeA: I suppose I should turn over to security guys all these Japanese tourists who took people of every dumb and ugly building here around.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 14 2005 21:41 utc | 24
1) Conspiracy theories are often just attempts to uncover what is hidden, obsured – fiiting some of the facts to hand into some scheme or theory that seems to have some weight, that lay outs, that states, maybe explains. Some of these are very plain and parsimonious (Crazed muslims.) They appear to be fact-driven, rest on simple relations, can often be proved /disproved. The causes identified lead to predictions, or at least have implications for the future, or help to understand other phenomena.
2) Sometimes, conspiracy theories are just symbolic, that is, some events are taken as a symptom or emblem of some larger principle, some known generality, and the two are but loosely connected, without a specific, worked out, causal relationship. (9/11 as blowback for the US’ sins.) These may be rather fanciful, but are usually recognizable by the tangential, symbolic (heavily laden in semantic meaning) elements. (Towers represent financial power, etc.) These theories *illuminate*, they *makes sense,* they *reverberate*. They furnish a sort of general aura that can be captivating, because of the multiplicity of links (fire – fall – destruction – sins – etc.) The theory doesn’t in itself ‘explain’ – it is more a matter of a general network of meaning relations. No predictions can be made, nor are they attempted.
3) Lastly, some conspiracy theories are called ‘paranoid’. Usually those who hold them do not feel personally involved or attacked, though a feel of doom or non-specific menace may be present. These theories take some slim facts and and throw them into a predetermined and sometimes diabolical over – reaching system that regulates too much. The reasoning rest on tautological loops between presuppositions and consequences; the conclusions are built in. (Mossad, Bilderbergers, NWO, etc.) The theory is so strong it can account for any facts, even contradictory ones! At the extreme, these theories are religious or occult, by-passing reality altogether.
Bush has served up (1); to give it meaning he has had to invoke some aspect of (2) – hate (They hate our freedoms) as (1) type-theories require motive or linear cause. He has used the predictive power of his theory (more terrarist attacks, quite reasonable within that frame) but has managed to avoid the verification and consequences issue entirely, which is highly unusual. Chomsky fans will plunge for (2) but as that is a little slim, they too require motive, so they borrow from (1) – thereby giving it implicit credence – to fix cause. Their ‘revenge’ is the loose outcome of history, with some ragged chickens finally coming home to roost. Predictions they studiously avoid, as any act can have all kinds mysterious consequences (contiguous meaning chain: and then – and then – next – etc.) -nothing can be done; proof and verification don’t concern them (rightly).
The (3) types are dismissed as wackos; their conclusions are weird, disagreeable; their reasoning faulty. Their merit lies mostly in refusing (in the case under discussion) (1) and (2). They too aim too high in the theory chain.
All three types of conspiracy theories share a peculiar characteristic of generality. The actors are turned into representatives: Muslims, Innocent Americans, Little Eichmans, etc. or stereotypes: Valiant Pilots, etc. The physical consequences and material events (steel beams, seismic readings, destroyed offices, poisonous air) are obscured, swept away in a primitive movie script, a tale of horror, as are the victims, who are just Mr. Everyman; the perps, anonymous nobodies; etc. Such general theories are common when the event or phenomenon is not understood at all ( “gravitational forces explain it!” – “its the economy, stupid!”) or when it needs to be covered up.
Posted by: Blackie | Feb 15 2005 16:53 utc | 26
You don’t need a hifalutin theory to know that the profit motive is backed up by force, and that the recent murder of a nun in Brazil has everything to do with the appetite of Northern markets for cheap hardwood, everything to do with finance capital and usury…
As with the death of Mr Mendez, a rubber tapper, the murder of Sister Dorothy has triggered waves of outrage among environmental and human rights activists who say she dedicated her life to helping the area’s poor, landless peasants and confronting the businesses that see the rainforest only as a resource to be plundered and which have already destroyed 20 per cent of its 1.6 million square miles.
It has also highlighted the problem for the Brazilian government of balancing a desire to protect the rainforest with pressure to open tracts of forest to support strong economic growth as demanded by the International Monetary Fund, which loaned Brazil billions of dollars following a recession in 2002. Such a conflict of interests has hindered attempts by the authorities to fulfil the promise of the left-leaning President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to find homes for 400,000 landless families. The promise is badly off target and showing no signs of rapid improvement.
(my emphasis).
The case where an enemy has been tricked into acting, is immediately blamed or reacted to with counter-attack, accompanied by (right then or later) the revelation of the original deception are common (e.g. guet-apens; pol who provokes another to wildly slander him..); in these situations the trickster, the instigator, is judged machiavellian, intelligent, a winner. If the move backfires, and the trickster cannot prevail, it is often possible to hide the original deception, thereby denying that a stupid move was made. The main characteristic of these situations is that if the deception was successful, and the outcome satisfactory, all becomes known, it is part of the scenario.
Occasions where one party (person, group, organisation, country, army, etc.) silently and secretely, with foreknowledge, allows an adversary or enemy agress it, while post facto remaining silent, or blaming that adversary without implementing appropriate (and pre-planned!) counter-attack, or blaming someone else – an uninvolved party, a bystander – are either rare, or non-existent.
Letting oneself be attacked without being able to reveal that it was ultimately a clever move is a fundamental no-no, a violation of the rules of any kind of war, conflict, quarrel. The only situation where it is permissible and advantageous is if there are great gains to be won by assuming the victim position.
–Private individuals today often pose as victims after having provoked or invented an attack, because the financial compensation can be enormous. Psychologically it is terribly destructive, not to be recommended. The deception cannot be revealed, often for legal reasons; if revealed, the instigator is rejected and reviled by everyone. Victims are in any case disliked. The money is no consolation, cannot compensate for the degraded social position. Triumphant victims are despised. —
After 9/11, two interpretations were offered. The first (Bush) presented a surprise attack by a wily, unidentified, previously badly understood, underestimated, enemy. The US took a terrible beating – all over the world people saw that the hegemon could not even defend its nerve center (Pentagon.) Defeat is defeat, written in any code. The second interpretation (conspiracists) followed the script of the machiavellian trick, with the agressed hopefully reaping benefits out of their false passivity.
“They let it happen on purpose to attack the Muslim world where the oil is, etc.” This interpretation was the only –only!– one that could explain this extraordinary event while maintaining American pride (or, in other terms, the upholding of a legitimate, thought out, basically intelligent, position.)
For that reason, conspiracy theories are allowed to flourish – they represent a rampart against the symbolic death of the unwitting, weak, hysterical, victim position.
Conspiracy theories are necessary and respectable.
Posted by: Blackie | Feb 16 2005 16:56 utc | 28
interesting report funded by us army war college entitled Deception 101 – Primer on Deception[pdf – 183k, 26pp] that was brought up in yesterday’s secrecy news. covers examples of political & military uses of deception that not everyone may be aware of.
Posted by: b real | Feb 16 2005 17:40 utc | 29