I confess that lately I have read some bits and pieces about democracy and power, and perused some conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is really an amazing categorisation - to be associated with it has the same sort of consequences as association with marijuana or homosexuality. This practise of research, done by people of various levels of qualification driven by scepticism, forms a bridge between sanity and insanity.
Well I don't think so, but that's just what it means. Like "heretic" combined with "pot-head".
After reading somethings, I currently hold 2 opinions where I previously had none:
1. Our democracy in the West seems to consist of nothing more than taking a vote, every few years.
Why do we have to vote people in? Why not simply have a body which does the doing, and the public can vote in the ideas instead. Did the British public really decide to star a war in Iraq? Of course not, nobody thinks that. I should think most would prefer to have of those military billions spent our side of the border. People have accepted that the government went to war for their own reasons, and are basically okay with it. Remember, the definition of a democracy is that the people control the government.
What's more, nowadays, everyone knows the military deployment was started on false pretences. The people in power said, "Okay you caught us, we made up some BS about what's in Saddam's arsenal so you would let us go and rough up his country". And since then people have been killed. Again, the public is pretty okay with it - willing even to give the lives of their family to the cause. Disquieting.
I hear on the news that we must finish the job in Iraq, we cannot leave yet - but I have no idea what the job is, only that it's not about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, or about dismantling his dangerous weapons, or about bringing Bin Laden to trial for his attack on new york, or about Al qaeda. Consider that these have variously been offered as justification for sending the military into another country and killing things, but have turned out not to be the justification. There has been no justification so far, for the death of many people. Not accidental death - if you're sending the people that comprise the army somewhere, you acknowledge danger, risk, possibility of death, but deem the cause worthy enough to send them in anyway.
I think our level of democracy is pretty pathetic, and would at least expect all national decision-making to be televised, interactive and inclusive. Surely with all the revolutionary advancements in communications over the years we are now far better equipped to achieve the democratic ideal of a country run by the population, and surely we would have made some advances in this direction? In a healthy democratic country I would expect to be making decisions about how things are run about once or twice a month maybe. Some decision making I wouldn't take part in, some I would, some the car mechanic would, others the shop owner would.
At the moment, once in a blue moon, you have are given the minimal choice to make between two guys, both marketing the hell out of themselves, pretending to be likeable, who will say anthing to get your vote, and who will do whatever they deem necessary when they are in power. Why are they even there? Why do we take for granted that a country necessarily requires such an alarming concentration of power?
Here's a relevant article: Times Online. My angle is that the government has a will separate to that of the public - which it acts upon. Public opinion is an obstacle, but it essentially can be bought or manufactured via PR companies.
2. Now for the real conspiracy theory stuff, September the 11th.
If you take the well-known footage of the world trade centre attack at face value, you will see that the buildings are undergoing something that resembles a controlled demolished.
You've probably seen a controlled demolition on TV before. It's appears to be the same occurrence.
Officially, fuel from the crashed planes burnt the building to the ground. The fire weakened the steel structure and 110 stories of steel and concrete fell to the ground at the speed of gravity in 15 seconds.
You've probably seen a burning building on TV before. I will say it definitely does not look like a burning building.
Here is another building. It wasn't hit by aeroplanes - burning debris from the twin towers started two small fires on one side of the building, which caused it to collapse. The occupants have been evacuated due to the fire, so it's easy to watch. What do you think? Normal burning building (official) or normal demolition (crackpot conspiracy theory): Video.
It is alleged that, if the official story was true, it would be the only occasion in history that a burning steel framed building just collapsed into the ground and vaporised.
I am interested in the ideas anyway - legitimately or not I don't know. If you've been piqued by the matter, Google has plenty to offer your curiosity. There are theories about London bombings too, but I haven't read it properly.
I'm not in a position to draw conclusions. However I will say one thing: In reading the theories, I have seen the raw material that serves as the starting point. Forget the theory, the facts alone are enough to raise serious questions.
Well put together conspiracy documentary on the WTC: Link.
posted by Fred Stidston @ 5:47 PM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Regarding (1), on democracy: I guess it's the least worst solution out there at the moment. Many people share your discomfiture with the democratic system and vote with their feet — by putting them up and settling down with a good book rather than trudging down to the voting booth on election day.
Back in 2005, at election time, when a surprising number of people elected not to vote, the Beeb ran this lighthearted summary of alternatives to democracy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4456269.stm
One thought-piece on alternatives to democracy is here: http://www.promethea.org/Misc_Compositions/CritiquesOfDemocracy/PastAlternatives.html -- note however that a sombre, serious tone does not always guarantee that all the views wrapped within it are not nonsensical.
Some clean definitions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
As for conspiracy theories, again Wikipedia has some dry observations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories -- including the amusing suggestion that conspiracy theories are "… the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people."
Maybe I'm too gullible, not suspicious enough, lacking in the cynicism department, whatever — but I've tended to lump most conspiracy theorists in with flat-earthers, creationists and other harmless types. More power to them: in fact, I really think that if you're gonna come up with a conspiracy theory, think really big. Like, you know, we're already living in The Matrix, or something like that out of a PKD novel.
The problem is that when you leave decision making to the people, most people will react emotionally, and not rationally. I'm not saying our leadership is particularly rational, but they DO tend to see the bigger picture, simply because they are embroiled in it every day. That they may try to sway to a liberal or conservative approach is a lesser point.
Think Oprah. Would you want that population making decisions on national security?
And, think a bit further, if people DID have the power to make these decisions, then you would very quickly have massive spin doctoring trying to sway people to vote one way or another. We'd see the rise of a new form of advertising as well as endorsing of various actions on talkshows etc. It'd be chaos, of a bad kind. Also simply because the massive amount of decisions needing to be made would probably baffle most people.
I dislike the current system, but I don't think putting all the power to the people is the right way either - simply because most people don't want it. Or they THINK they want it, but if they got it, they would be frustrated and ill equipped to deal with it.
While I agree on the dangers of giving more power to the hoi poloi, I'd just note that rational thinking is not always the best way to make the right decision. What's needed is the right balance of emotional response and cold-calculation so we can tackle a mixture of immediate and long-term decisions. Your emotions are better at saving you from getting run over by a truck.
Ah, but James, who's to say that what you call 'emotional response' is simply cold calculation happening so fast that we think it is somehow intuitive as opposed to algorithmic? Or, alternatively, that 'emotional response' is simply the label we give our ability to jump straight to the answer to a previously cold-calculated question?
Anonymous, how could you!
"The problem is that when you leave decision making to the people, most people will react emotionally, and not rationally. I'm not saying our leadership is particularly rational, but they DO tend to see the bigger picture, simply because they are embroiled in it every day. That they may try to sway to a liberal or conservative approach is a lesser point.
Think Oprah. Would you want that population making decisions on national security?"
Unthinkable thoughts! The people in power have no greater right to decide what happens to the country than any other human being.
"And, think a bit further, if people DID have the power to make these decisions, then you would very quickly have massive spin doctoring trying to sway people to vote one way or another. We'd see the rise of a new form of advertising as well as endorsing of various actions on talkshows etc."
That is exactly the world we live in! And it can only happen because the people competing for power are few, rich and powerful.
If everyone in the country was trying to sway everyone else round to their ideas there would be debate (paramount) - The big-budget spin doctoring wouldn't be on such a big budget if you got rid of the rich and powerful government. If you left it to thousands of groups over the whole country to do their own spin doctoring it equate a diverse political debate.
"The Beeb ran this lighthearted summary of alternatives to democracy"
Love that article. LOL, demarchy is straight out of a philip K dick novel called Solar Lottery. I choose extreme democracy.
I personally think conspiracy theory is a terrible word to use, because it means you're not evaluating the ideas being presented.
Sure people have ideas about things which are absolutely barmy - call them barmy. Other people have ideas which are normal - which they have either accepted unthinkingly, or have evaluated and agreed with. And other people have ideas which are not normal. Every suggestion requires individual consideration. And no ideas deserve discreditation* purely on the basis that they involve rich people lying.
People have no trouble believing they lied when it's so coarse as to be unmissable and is all but acknowledged (the notorious WMDs and a fraudulent dossier).
Should it not be viable to entertain that there have been, and will be, similar lies which do not come out? All it would take is a lie that is non-crass and that isn't publicly contradicted.
Hell, string theorists that propose inter-galactic conspiracies have more room to think.
It is just as bad to discredit all these ideas as it is too embrace every one, and both require the same process of non-thinking.
What was once a conspiracy theory with JFK has now become widely accepted as vaguely some kind of deception.
*Made up word
Thanks for the other links, I haven't time to read them now.
Re: Paw on emotional response vs cold calculation
If you evaluate an emotional response, like getting angry, or feeling scared, with cold-calculated thinking, you usually come to the conclusion that there was a better way to react. And you usually notice that the emotional response was very self-serving and short-sighted.
Regardless of the mental make-up or the ability of the people to rule the themselves, I believe that they have the right to rule themselves. That no-one else has the right to rule them. In fact, that the adult people of the country are obligated to rule themselves, and not just put their feet up switch their brain off and leave their responsibilities to the plutocracy.
Re: the calc-passion split: Studies have shown (I loathe that expression - its use here is in the purely post-ironic fashion) that the distinction between these modes of behaviour is caused by stimuli from different parts of the brain. In an urgent situation, we don't have the time to follow a carefully redundant algorithm and error check it, rather we choose the quick and dirty hack that has a chance of cascade failure but will get the job done for now.
I watched the documentary on the WTC you linked to. I thought it raised some good points.
I thought the most convincing point was that the spilts in the WTC's foundation 'H' girders looked just like the controlled spilts they showed were used in demolition.
I can't imagine that kind of split resulting from the collapsing building.
Makes you wonder.
Post a Comment
<< Home