zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Experts in biological weapons claim that these types of specific samples are primarily required when a biological weapon is being designed to destroy a specific populace – in this case (Caucasian) Russians

Yeah I would like to see who those “experts” were.

Have you ever heard of bio-weapons designed to destroy a specific populace?

That’s a concept that’s so far-fetched, it hasn’t even shown up in science fiction.

…

============

Ok, let us google around and see what we can find out about targeting bio-weapons to a specific population.

w
v

JackPMiller wrote:

Your from West Virginia. What is biking like in your state? Just wondering.

===================

Well, we mainly just shoot bikers here, Jack. We dont trust those fancy newfangled machines.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

When i used the term “corporotacracy” though, i am not thinking of a simplistic, black and white, static, model of the situation. Its much more like a corporate-kaleidoscope. Er somethin. I do think there is enough of a ‘fluid form’ to go ahead and use a term like corporotacracy, conceding that its just a word. A label. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal.

Okay fair enough.

On conspiracies. If you just mean that all the time groups of people unite and try to accomplish something as a group, sure. Whether or not they accomplish anything depends on whether or not (to sound circular) they CAN. So for example there was only a handful of Cuban revolutionaries but their time was right. Same can’t be said for all revolutionaries in history, like the assassins of Julius Ceaser, who lost. But that’s not the basis of conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory says that large groups of people in positions of power manipulate the entire system at a level of cooperation and collusion that is, when you look at it, impossible. So for example could the Bush government get away with planning a massive attack on its own infrastructure without someone figuring it out? Do all scientists from related fields throughout the world agree to lie about climate change because they have a secret agenda? I think the word changes when you go from “conspiracies” to “conspiracy theory.” We know for example that the small group of Capone gangsters conspired to take out their rivals in Moran’s north side gang, and that was the Valentine’s Day Massacre. But a “conspiracy theory” would say something like this–the Capone gang conspired with the entire government to take advantage of the temperance movement to push prohibition so they could profit from illegal liquor sales. In other words, the term “conspiracy theory” does not literally refer to theories about conspiracies, with the word “conspiracy” here having its ordinary meaning (groups agree to do something.) It’s actually a pejorative used to label ideas of social manipulation at a massive level that goes beyond ordinary criminal action by an actual tight-knit group. So for example, flat earthers genuinely say that scientists–basically, all of them–conspire with NASA to deny the flat earth reality because they profit from the lie.

I actually think Dulles arranged Kennedy’s death. I can’t prove it but if it were true that would have been a conspiracy.

I don’t believe that every scientist in the world cooperates in maintaining a massive lie about the climate. That’s conspiracy theory. The actions of conspiracy theories require a level of cooperation that is telepathic. Otherwise why would a Japanese scientist who works on atmosphere physics know how to lie in harmonious concert with a Swedish meteorologist.

So on that we’re not quite saying the same things.

==============
Well ok, if that is how “conspiracy theory” is defined in academia, so be it. It basically only applies to the Alex Jones nutcase-theories.

I would only caution we must be wary of lumping everyone who wrestles with notions of concentrated power into that nutcase-group.

We know there are very very powerful groups in the country and the world and they wield a lot of power. Are we really in Alex-Jones Territory if we wonder about the influence of the Bildergers/Tri-lateral folks? The CIA/NSA folks? The Mega-Corpse? Etc.

One of the problems I see, is, this is beyond scientific study. At least it looks that way to me. How does one ‘study’ what the Rothschilds are doing? Or the Rockefellas or Morgans or the mega-corpse lobbyists? How does one study the corporotacracy scientifically? And if one is wedded to sciency-thot then perhaps one is very quick to dismiss ‘conspiracy ideas’ ?

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Zn trusts the ‘peer review’ system much more than i do. I cant tell how much of it has been tainted now by the Monsanto’s and mega-corpse.

That taints the entire peer review process as a process? How?

I don’t believe in conspiracy theory btw because I believe in ideological theory, which is its opposite.

From the point of view of ideological theory, conspiracy theory is just an effort to reduce and simplify and come up with reductive answers.

There’s a concept for example in ideological theory called “uneven developments.” In this view, you never look for a complete and unitary world—there’s different processes and stages at work, and you can have progressive threads mixed in with regressive ones in any kind of thing. So for example all the CEOs who resigned from Trump councils were appalled by his overt sympathy for confederate nostalgia. But you can bet those same people aren’t all good on gender at work, universal health care, citizens united, and foreign policy…though some of them may be good on some of those things.

The point being, any sloganistic approach that reduces it all to a couple of simple black n white formulas are just in advance going to be insufficient. From my point of view, conspiracy theory does do that.

===============

Well, i dont believe in reductionism or slogans either. So i think Ideological theory can include plenty of conspiracies. I think any reading of history will show lots of conspiracies. Simply dismissing all of them, seems simplistic and a form of reductionism to me.

So the approach for me is to figure out which conspiracies are real and which arent. Its very very hard to know. I am not going to simply ‘dismiss’ all of them. Thats just me, though.

As far as your description of the layers, nuances, counter-currents, counter-hegemonies, complexities, flows this way and that….sure. Absolutely. Agreed.
When i used the term “corporotacracy” though, i am not thinking of a simplistic, black and white, static, model of the situation. Its much more like a corporate-kaleidoscope. Er somethin. I do think there is enough of a ‘fluid form’ to go ahead and use a term like corporotacracy, conceding that its just a word. A label. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal.

But swirling in the corporotacracy I’d be shocked if there werent conspiracies. I mean, heck we know Capitalism has been chock full of little groups who wanted to form monopolies, etc.

w
v

Mackeyser wrote:

The first explanation from the government was awful. It was unscientific and just terrible.

However, the Purdue Dept of Engineering nailed the explanation and I’ve been satisfied ever since.

It’s just unfortunate that the govt was in such a hurry to put out any explanation that they put out a crap one that fuels conspiracy theories to this day.

===============

I guess they did an animation as well: