arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Despite the fact that they are obviously speaking absolute nonsense, conspiracy nutcases continue to be proved absolutely right in their various theories. The latest example of this can be seen at http://www.darpa.mil/iao which is the website of (yet another) US intelligence agency.

The symbol of this new department is very familiar for all of those people who were brave enough not to ignore the conspiracy loons. It is a pyramid, topped with an all-seeing eye. This is a classic illuminati/new world order symbol and is meant to represent absolute power of government and the concept that there is no privacy allowed in the new world order. Naturally, the eye is overlooking a picture of earth.

I challenge anyone to explain to me why the books of David Icke and other so-called crazies continue to become reality. I am honestly quite disgusted at the number of people prepared to bury their heads in the sand about these issues whilst the global elite make a final bid for total world control.

It's right that this is a site of a intellegence agency in America.
Don't forget that David Icke is extreme- right.

Hi townie,

This website seems to me a bit too obvious to be a true intelligence service. Looks more like a big joke. Although it might be real, as Guido confirmed.
David Icke ? Just check some of his websites. All this is nothing but comersial shit, based on a mixture of pseudo-science, racist teories, obscure new-age-ism etc. This man is selling crap to the sole purpose of gaining loads of money. Don't waste your time on that. As to the subject of total control, I 'd like to suggest you Foucault's Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison (1975), Translated by Alan Sheridan as Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon, 1977). In case you prefer novels, there is always Orwell's 1984.

Conspiracism as a form of Scapegoating
"The current wave of conspiracism has two main historic sources, irrational fears of a freemason conspiracy and irrational fears of a Jewish conspiracy. There are many purveyors of the conspiracist worldview and the belief structure is surprisingly widespread. Conspiracist ideas are promoted by several right-wing institutions, the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, and the Lyndon LaRouche networks. These groups are examples of right-wing populism in which conspiracist narratives such as producerism are common. In Western culture, conspiracist scapegoating is rooted in apocalyptic fears and millennial expectations. Sometimes conspiracism is secularized and adopted by portions of the political left. It is interesting to note that on both the left and the right (as well as the center) there are critics of the apocalyptic style and flawed methodology of conspiracism.
In highlighting conspiracist allegation as a form of scapegoating, it is important to remember the following:

* All conspiracist theories start with a grain of truth, which is then transmogrified with hyperbole and filtered through pre-existing myth and prejudice,
* People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, which has concrete consequences in the real world,
* Conspiracist thinking and scapegoating are symptoms, not causes, of underlying societal frictions, and as such are perilous to ignore,
* Scapegoating and conspiracist allegations are tools that can be used by cynical leaders to mobilize a mass following,
* Supremacist and fascist organizers use conspiracist theories as a relatively less-threatening entry point in making contact with potential recruits,
* Even when conspiracist theories do not center on Jews, people of color, or other scapegoated groups, they create an environment where racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice and oppression can flourish."
http://www.publiceye.org/b_conspi.html

Conspiracism and "Secret Elites"
"Just like in other forms of scapegoating, conspiracists sometimes target people who in fact have significant power and culpability in a given conflict--Wall Street power brokers, corporate magnates, banking industry executives, politicians, government officials--but conspiracists portray these forces in caricature that obscures a rational assessment of their wrongdoing. It is not individual people who have the actual power, but the roles they occupy in social, political, and economic institutions. There are undeniably powerful individuals, but when they die, their power does not evaporate, it redistributes itself to other individuals in similar roles, and to individuals that scramble to inherit the role just vacated.
No single power bloc, company, family, or individual in a complex modern society wields absolute control, even though there are always systems of control. Wall Street stock brokers are not outsiders deforming an otherwise happy system. As Holly Sklar argues, "the government is manipulated by various elites, often behind the scenes, but these elites are not a tiny secret cabal with omniscience and omnipotence."22 There is no secret team...the elites that exist are anything but secret. The government and the economy are not alien forces superimposed over an otherwise equitable and freedom loving society.
As Matthew N. Lyons points out, "Scapegoating is not only about who is targeted, but also about who is not targeted, and what systems and structures are not being challenged by focusing on the scapegoat.""
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/conspiracism-05.htm

Conspiracism as Parody of Institutional Analysis
"Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for economic and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems and structures of power. Conspiracist allegations, therefore, interfere with a serious progressive analysis--an analysis that challenges the objective institutionalized systems of oppression and power, and seeks a radical transformation of the status quo.

The subjectivist view of conspiracist critics of the status quo is a parody of serious research. As Lyons observes, "To claim, for instance, that the Rockefellers control the world, takes multiple interconnections and complex influences and reduces them to mechanical wire pulling."33 As one report critical of right-wing populist conspiracism suggested:

"There is a vast gulf between the simplistic yet dangerous rhetoric of elite cabals, Jewish conspiracies and the omnipotence of "international finance" and a thoughtful analysis of the deep divisions and inequities in our society."34
Separating real conspiracies from the exaggerated, non-rational, fictional, lunatic, or deliberately fabricated variety is a problem faced by serious researchers, and journalists. For progressive activists, differentiating between the progressive power structure research and the pseudo-radical allegations of conspiracism is a prerequisite for rebuilding a left analysis of social and political problems. "
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/conspiracism-06.htm

Virtual Guided Tour of Regressive Populist Anti-Globalism - Mark Rupert - Syracuse University
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/far_right.htm

This clarifying answer by K confirms that this iao website is pure nonsense. See also K's link to http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/far_right.htm.
Conspiracy nutcases proved extreme-right !

Chip Berlet's writings at the Political Research Associates website (http://www.publiceye.org) are indeed very informative. For those interested in the anti-masonic mythology, there is a good website debunking the lies about freemasonry at: http://www.masonicinfo.com/. Another website dealing with debunking conspiracism is: http://www.floodlight.org/theory/contents.html. From there you can find several other sites. Conspiracism and antisemitism are closely related (the 'Jewish-masonic conspiracy' has been the most 'researched' one after all). David Icke is a prime example of an antisemitic conspiracist. He is amongst many other insane things promoting the infamous "Protocols of the elders of Zion." For Icke see: http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm and http://lgp.social-ecology.org/issues/lgp35.html. I myself wrote a short article for the Swedish magazine "Folkvett" about this madman (see: http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/Folkvett/20013zegers.html - unfortunately only in Swedish on the net).

Il n'y a pas que des mauvaises choses sur ce site, comme par exemple le projet de la technologie Babylon qui pourrait permettre dans le futur de faire une conversion vocale d'une langue vers une autre au moyen d'un appareil portable style baladeur.

Le problème est une fois de plus l'inversion des valeurs qui font la fierté de l'homme car la seule utilisation qu'ils semblent visiblement entrevoir pour cette technologie est une situation de combat dans le cadre d'une guerre. Comme si le bruit des balles ne suffisaient pas pour dire: planquez-vous!

Les deux premiers articles de la constitution suisse sont édifiant à ce propos d'inversion totale des valeurs fondamentales de l'homme:
1) Au nom de Dieu
2) Tout Suisse naît soldat.
Les hommes d'église, quelque soit leur dieu, ne s'insurge pas contre cette utilisation dévoyée du nom de Dieu et il voudraient même nous faire croire que les dieux qu'ils représentent sont des dieux d'amour et de fraternité et non des dieux de domination.
De plus le 2ème article voudrait (outre son coté machiste évident réduisant la femme au rôle de femelle génitrice) voudrait me faire croire que le sens de MA vie et d'être soldat. Ils näont même pas peur du ridicule.

Bon à part cela, la citation de l'arborigène sur le site présenté en tête d'article, citation qui met en avance le rôle de l'individualisme de notre société comme facteur principal d'érosion est tout à fait juste et sensée. C'est dommage qu'elle soit utilisée dans un site servant à mon avis à promouvoir les intérêts égoïstes des milieux de la défense. Le jour où ils seront capable d'utiliser une technologie pour réaliser des choses positives à la place de semer des munitions de toutes sortes partout où ils le peuvent un grand pas aura été fait.

D'ici là, il est plus que jamais important de se rappeler que d'une part nos pensées déterminent nos actions et que d'autre part, ce qui donne la transcendance c'est qu'entre le passé et le futur, il y a le présent qui est le moment de la décision.

Pour terminer, je parlerai de fraternité pour dire que plus que de droits de l'homme individualistes, c'est d'une charte des devoirs fraternels de l'homme dont nous aurions besoin.
Là aussi, passer de droits qui ne sont que des concepts à des devoirs qui sont des actes donne la transcendance. Si ces devoirs sont fraternels, cette transcendance est positive.

This comes from a page, K suggested in a comment on a other articl:

"In his book, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, former ABC World News investigative reporter James Bamford details a plan by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to launch terrorist activities against US people and property. The plot was put together in the early '60s, under the auspices of General Lyman Lemnitzer. The right wing extremist Lemnitzer was the powerful Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, inherited from the Eisenhower Administration by a displeased JFK. His brilliant notion was that these incidents (which might include bombings, hijackings of planes, even shooting down John Glenn's Friendship 7 space capsule) could be blamed on Castro's Cuba. This would be used to galvanize U.S. public support for invading that island. Luckily, their plans were shot down by the administration. But the history of Operation Northwoods, as the plan was called, stands as a cautionary tale against considering anything "unthinkable."

"It's easy enough to tear apart the notion of a still active, century-long, racist-Nazi (with a capital N) conspiracy based on the science of genetics. Many racist ideologues do use rhetoric couched in the scientific (or more often pseudo-scientific) jargon of genetic determinism. Some racist ideologues do continue to advance schemes for sterilizing "undesirable" populations, all too similar to those of Nazi Germany. Most scientists, (including most molecular biologists), most birth-control and reproductive rights advocates, as well as most environmentalists and population control proponents, have nothing to do with them, following totally divergent and conflicting social and political agendas.

Wild stretches? Yes. But wrong about any Bush-Nazi connection? Not really. Or, at least, not entirely."

http://www.thethresher.com/indiscreet.html

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/

This is no fake website: none but the US-military can have a .mil website.

P.S. Dave Icke would even blame an egg falling in an Ethiopian kitchen to his conspirators

Will the Real Paranoids Please Raise Their Hands?

by Butler Shaffer

Texte trouvé sur http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer8.html
et qui me semble être une bonne réflexion sur le sujet.

When one dares to dig beneath the surface of governmental programs to reveal undisclosed purposes, he or she is usually met with charges of being a "paranoid" defender of "conspiracy theories." More often than not, such an accusation silences the questioner, as it is designed to do. I long ago came to the conclusion that those who chastise others for spouting "conspiracy theories" tend to do so because they don't want the implications of their own schemes revealed to the public. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!," intoned the Wizard of Oz, an admonition designed to intimidate the inquisitive into silence.

I, for one, gladly admit to the embracing of any conspiracy theory for which there is credible evidence. But those who condemn me for my views never seem interested in examining the evidence, their purposes being more to prevent the raising of discomforting questions. Having read a good deal of history over the years, I ask my critics to account for the countless foreign intrigues, plots, assassinations, alliances, and other cabals that have been at the heart of so much of the history of the world. Do Shakespeare's tragedies – almost all of which are grounded in conspiracies of one kind or another – have nothing to teach us about the machinations of human behavior?

A Jewish acquaintance once criticized me for my views, adding "there are no conspiracies." "May I quote you on that?," I asked. He could not understand my purpose in wanting to do so, so I told him: "because it's not often one hears Jewish people denying the Nazi holocaust the way you just did." After advising him that the "Nazi holocaust" requires a conspiracy of German government officials, he was prepared to modify his statement to allow for the kinds of conspiracies that he believed in.

One of my colleagues, who teaches antitrust law, attacked me for defending even the idea of "conspiracies," until I asked him if he intended to reduce his course from three units to one. "Since so much of antitrust law consists of ‘conspiracies' to restrain trade, or fix prices, or divide up markets, or monopolize an industry, or engage in such more subtle ‘conspiracies' as ‘conscious parallelism,' I assume that, since you do not believe in conspiracies, you will take the lead in condemning such specious theories."

Conspiracy theories abound in our society, and are widely accepted, . . . provided you are identifying the "politically correct" conspiracy. World War II was conducted, in part, on the premise that the so-called "axis powers" were conspiring to take over the world. But if one tries to offer evidence that FDR secretly manipulated the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor in order to serve his political agenda, the "anti-conspiracy league" quickly appears to attack not the evidence, but the state of mind of the accuser. When World War II ended, the "international communist conspiracy" was hurriedly rushed onstage to justify the commitment of trillions of dollars of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a "Cold War." When the "Cold War" critics began to speak and write about how this campaign was designed to serve American corporate-state interests at the expense of the American people, the "anti-conspiracy league" was again called into action.

For those who are paying attention, the incongruity of the critics of conspiracy theories should be apparent. "We are busy conducting wars against sinister foreign conspiracies," they might argue, "and anyone who suggests that we might be engaged in conspiracies of our own, are ‘paranoids.'" "They" conspire, in other words, but "we" do not. A childishly simple explanation for consumption by childishly simple minds.

"Paranoia" consists not in a fear of others, but in a baseless fear. Would one regard a Jew, in Nazi Germany, as "paranoid," because he thought the government was out to do him harm? If so, how would we characterize the state of mind of another Jew, similarly located, who did not see any threat from his government? When one further considers how preoccupied government officials are with protecting themselves from those they imagine themselves to represent – to the point of routinely having bomb-sniffing dogs, armed security guards, and military helicopters and soldiers accompany their public appearances – it should be asked: just who is being "paranoid?"

It is interesting to observe the psychological projection that takes place in such dynamics. The defenders of statism attack their critics as "paranoids" while, at the same time, fostering an endless supply of "enemies" against whom they promise us protection! Politics thrives on the mobilization of the fear of others. President Bush's unilateral declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world can only be premised upon the most paranoid assumption that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy against American interests!

It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the "dark side" of their personality – i.e., the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc. – can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken. All that occurs in such behavior, of course, is the punishment of the others who stand in as scapegoats for the feared shortcomings of those engaged in projecting. This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset that when America bombs other countries – killing innocent men, women, and children in the process – it is a force for "good" defending "freedom." When these other countries retaliate for such attacks – killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing – they represent the forces of "evil" engaged in "terrorism." That grown men and women can internalize this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening.

This war – whose name is ever-changing – has moved far beyond simply retaliation against those responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th. It has become more of a self-righteous "holy crusade" against nations that are unprepared to acknowledge America as the rightful ruler of the entire world. Neo-conservative zealots have exploited the September 11th tragedy to pursue a much broader agenda of American hegemony. It is no longer sufficient to track down the perpetrators of that attack, the war must be expanded to include nations whose identities seem to have been selected from someone's Rolodex file of place-names! "Who shall we attack next?" has been the operative question around Washington. After months of bombing Afghanistan, President Bush was quick to declare an "Axis of Evil" as the broader enemy, suggesting that North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were engaged in some conspiracy, apparently of satanic dimensions, against America. Soon, new candidates were offered up for public consumption: the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, Colombia, and perhaps other Middle Eastern or African nations. The candidates for inclusion on this list may include anyone unprepared to genuflect before American interests. (The list will presumably not include China, which would likely offer deadly resistance.)

Let us suppose that some criminal has engaged in a violent attack upon your Uncle Willie's home. Let us suppose, further, that Willie has undertaken a campaign to discover – and bring to account – the perpetrators of this offense. This would be a perfectly rational response on his part, for which the rest of us would likely lend our support. But suppose that Willie goes further than this and, not being able to discover the criminal, begins going through his neighborhood shooting anyone about whom he has become suspicious, or against whom he has long harbored a grudge. Would your response be to jump on his bandwagon and assist his undertaking, or would you want him confined to some facility that could provide him with a whole lot of couch time?

It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself.

February 11, 2002

In The International Herald Tribune of 27/28-07-02:
"Moussaoui is charged with six counts of CONSPIRACY, four of wich carry the death penalty..."

And can we say that the coming attack on Iraq is also a conspiracy or to we call it a military plan?

Les liens que j'ai postés (Answer) ne nient pas qu'il existe parfois de conspirations, ni que certaines personnes peuvent avoir un pouvoir et une capacité de nuisance énormes.

"Just like in other forms of scapegoating, conspiracists sometimes target people who in fact have significant power and culpability in a given conflict--Wall Street power brokers, corporate magnates, banking industry executives, politicians, government officials--"

Le problème c'est la caricature qui réduit le problème à des questions de personnes, alors qu'une analyse rigoureuse devrait s'intéresser à la structure sociale et politique et à son fonctionnement. Quand un dictateur ou un PDG meurt, il est remplacé, et la structure perdure.

"but conspiracists portray these forces in caricature that obscures a rational assessment of their wrongdoing. It is not individual people who have the actual power, but the roles they occupy in social, political, and economic institutions. There are undeniably powerful individuals, but when they die, their power does not evaporate, it redistributes itself to other individuals in similar roles, and to individuals that scramble to inherit the role just vacated."

Ce type de pensée personnaliste est lié à une pensée de droite : ce sont les individus et leur morale qu'il faudrait changer. Alors qu'une pensée de gauche prone un changement du système socio-plitique (organisation économique, organisation du pouvoir politique etc...).

D'autre part, en se focalisant sur des individus malfaisants et touts-puissants, les discours conspirationnistes mentent toujours par omission. Et servent à disculper d'autres élites, qui ont partie liée avec les propagateurs de ces théories.
Ainsi, des activistes d'extrême-droite font-ils oublier les méfaits des élites étatiques ou religieuses, en se focalisant sur les méfaits des banquiers intenationnaux.
Ainsi des activistes de la droite libérale font-ils oublier les méfaits du capitalisme, en se concentrant sur les dictateurs et les gouvernements corrompus.

A titre d'exemple :

- le texte de B Shaffer publié par Doiminique provient d'un site politique ultra-libéral (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) dont la devise est :
"le premier site anti-Etat et pro-marché"

- le texte de Tarpley et Chaitkin publié par Dominique provient d'un site d'extrême-droite réactionnaire (http://www.apfn.org/) dont la devise est :
"Un partiote est quelqu'un qui aime Dieu, sa famille et son pays... Nous pensons que les Patriotes doivent diriger l'Amérique"

Le conspirationnisme (pas la dénonciation de tel ou tel véritable complot, mais une vision du monde politique qui ne serait régi que par des complots) est une pensée de droite.

"Le conspirationnisme (pas la dénonciation de tel ou tel véritable complot, mais une vision du monde politique qui ne serait régi que par des complots) est une pensée de droite."

Et de gauche ou va la gauche ne pas comdamner la guerre contre Irak?
K, tu donnes des liens, tu ecrit aussi que il y quelque chose de vrai de le link Bush-nazi mais tu n'arretes pas d'ecrire que les auteurs de ce livre sont d'extreme-droite.
Sur un des liens tu a donné, on trouve que ce n'est pas comme ca que la famille Bush a inventé le nazisme et le holocaust, mais elle la finacié un petit peu.
Il y aussi quelq'un qui est directeur d'un museum de holocaust à Florida qui a dit quand Bush était voté(?) président, ca n'était pas juste a cause de les choses son grand-pere a fait.

Quand quelque personnes organisent un action contre par exemple McDonalds, est-ce ca c'est aussi un conspiracy ou pas?

>Et de gauche ou va la gauche ne pas comdamner la guerre >contre Irak?

Si tu veux dire que la gauche officielle n'est pas réellement de gauche, je suis d'accord.
Quand je parle de pensée de gauche, je ne parle pas des partis, mais de projet politique social fondé sur l'idée d'égalité, de justice, et de liberté.

>K, tu donnes des liens, tu ecrit aussi que il y quelque >chose de vrai de le link Bush-nazi mais tu n'arretes pas >d'ecrire que les auteurs de ce livre sont d'extreme-droite.

Oui, je dis que certains faits peuvent être vrais dans ces textes. Mais qu'il faut se méfier des interprétations qu'ils en tirent car les auteurs sont d'extrême-droite. Exactement comme tu le dis. Le fait que la famille Bush ait financé les Nazis, est possible. Mais ca n'explique pas l'existence du Nazisme.

>Sur un des liens tu a donné, on trouve que ce n'est pas >comme ca que la famille Bush a inventé le nazisme et le >holocaust, mais elle la finacié un petit peu.

Oui, je suis d'accord les causes historiques de Nazisme ne peuvent pas être réduites à l'influence de la famille Bush.
Il y a eu plein d'autres causes plus importantes : la crise économique, la défaite de la première guerre mondiale, le sentiment nationaliste, l'antisémitisme etc...

>Il y aussi quelq'un qui est directeur d'un museum de >Holocaust à Florida qui a dit quand Bush était voté(?) >président, ca n'était pas juste a cause de les choses son >grand-pere a fait.

Je ne sais pas, mais ca me semble probable qu'il y a plusieurs raisons à son élection.

>Quand quelque personnes organisent un action contre par >exemple McDonalds, est-ce ca c'est aussi un conspiracy ou >pas?

Je dirais plutôt que c'est de la RESISTANCE ! ;-)

La révolte sauvage contre les élites, est-elle permise, oui ou non? Parce qu´aujourd´hui pour critiquer l´Etat et dénoncer ces fumiers de capitalistes, il faudrait, à croire certains, être assermenté, autorisé, par monsieur le juge des proximités; adoubé par la Kritique officielle, et ne pas porter les lettres infamantes: conspirationniste, révisionniste ou le must antisémite.
C´est tout juste si d´aucuns ne rangeraient toutes nos éructations anarchistes dans la catégorie des incivilités, qui pourraient conduire à l´irréversible.
C´est-à-dire la prise du pouvoir par les fascistes?
Une armée fantôme bien pratique, qui permet d´apeurer le populo et de bourrer les urnes, le temps des élections.
Dormez braves gens, la police est à tous les étages; la justice, nulle part!
Peut-être que cette justice sociale, que tant de gens réclament, c´est un complot des pauvres contre les riches, une idée conspirationniste. Quand penses-tu Mr K?
Il est curieux de constater qu´on inflige de cette insulte, conspirationniste, après tout des marginaux, mais que jamais l´on traite Bush, Sharon, et tant d´autres crapules au pouvoir, de conspirationniste. C´est dire qu´on applique à la lettre la célèbre formule du père Hugo: "Que tu sois riche ou pauvre, la justice, c´est selon."
Les anticonspirationnistes me font penser, un peu, à ces juges d´instruction, qui dénoncent la toute-puissance chez l´enfant, menotté, encadré par les gendarmes, assis devant leur bureau, mais restent benoîts quand la toute-puissance du Parquet leur retire une affaire. Elle est où la critique et l´analyse de l´institution à ce momment-là... Mr K.?
Les "conspirationnistes" ont au moins le courage d´établir des listes de Puissants, d´intouchables; les anticonspirationnistes remplissent leurs paniers à salade de menus fretins; qu´ils s´en vont trier dans leurs souricières: tiens, dominique! Un conspirationniste; tiens, RB, un antisémite! Tiens, peut-être que c´est moi que vous cherchez...
C´est drôle, pour des gens comme Mr K, qui se réclame de Marx et de la révolution sociale, de finir en flic de la pensée. Pour une pensée qui n´est même pas la sienne.
K écrit dans une précédente page que le conspirationnisme n´est pas de la contestation mais une simple attaque de figure emblématique de l´establishment et qu´il épargne les structures sociales; qu´il serait l´oeuvre de fascistes déguisés, ratissant large... Je suis pourtant lecteur de Macchiavel et j´ai guère flairé auprès des intervenants, qui nous soumettaient des oeuvres interdites, une telle supercherie.
En revanche, les anticonspirationnistes se focalisant sur ce qui est, finalement, un épiphénomène, en oublient de démolir les institutions: les prisons, les bagnes pour enfants, les armées, les polices, les ministères, les usines, les églises. Institutions qui recèlent tous les fascismes et toutes les conspirations du monde.