I've occasionally seen some conspiracy theories drip onto leftist discussions, the main one I remember being 9/11 truther stuff.
There's a good reason why conspiracy theorists are reactionary: the entire point of these theories is to construct a view of the world that blames all the problems on anything except material forces. It has to be something other than capitalism.
The left just identifies capitalism as the culprit and so doesn't have to turn over rocks or invent reptilians or fabricate any kind of stories. Plentiful enough reality is right there.
Yeah, is honestly kinda nice when horseshoe experts say "replace 'capitalists' with 'jews' and leftist sound exactly like nazis, anyways, please donate to my patreon so I can buy insulin this month"
Yeah, is honestly kinda nice when horseshoe experts say “replace ‘capitalists’ with ‘jews’ and leftist sound exactly like nazis, anyways, please donate to my patreon so I can buy insulin this month”
Kinda the point to be honest. It co-opts a feeling everyone has deep down within capitalism that they are being exploiter and ruled over by some.... Entity.
It redirects that feeling to race rather than the bourgeoisie as a means of dividing the proletariat.
Sadly, people trying to analyze the exact flash-point of jet fuel got lost in the broader question of whether we were being lied into a new Vietnam.
I always kinda laugh at folks who doggedly insist the Twin Towers involved a controlled demolition, because the specs on the building were supposed to make it plane-proof. A seemingly far more likely conclusion - in my mind, at least - was that the Towers weren't as structurally sound as advertised and the architects/inspectors simply lied the problem away. But, like, disappearing several hundred airline passengers and setting up an elaborate array of hologram projectors just seems more credibly than "Building inspector in NYC lied on a safety report."
But why is that empirically the only time that's ever happened? Even NIST admitted that it was a "new type" of collapse. That's not the first time a building's been on fire for a long time
It's also really weird that Larry Silverstein is on video saying they "made a decision to pull the building". "Pull" is demolitions slang to initiate a demolition.
Okay, but why is he on tape saying to "pull the building"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
At the very best, WTC7 fell due to fires and the owner of WTC7 decided to troll the world by pretending it was demolished.
At worst, it was actually demolished
edit: could I get a real answer other than a downvote? This is the owner of the building on video saying that they "made the decision to pull the building". I guess we're stanning the Bush admin now
There’s a good reason why conspiracy theorists are reactionary: the entire point of these theories is to construct a view of the world that blames all the problems on anything except material forces. It has to be something other than capitalism.
I'm 99% convinced that most, if not all popular conspiracy theories come straight from the CIA. Seriously.
More in the sense that conspiracy theorists make the motivations of their enemies to be inexplicable, unknowable, or simply some nebulous thirst for power. They have to invent an enemy that's not clear, because a clear vision would place blame on the obvious day to day nature of labor and management of resources. A conspiracy theorist has to disregard all of that and instead point to secret organizations or something scifi or supernatural. They can't point at how things are now as anything meaningful. They have to point at some mysterious external force.
I've occasionally seen some conspiracy theories drip onto leftist discussions, the main one I remember being 9/11 truther stuff.
There's a good reason why conspiracy theorists are reactionary: the entire point of these theories is to construct a view of the world that blames all the problems on anything except material forces. It has to be something other than capitalism.
The left just identifies capitalism as the culprit and so doesn't have to turn over rocks or invent reptilians or fabricate any kind of stories. Plentiful enough reality is right there.
Yeah, is honestly kinda nice when horseshoe experts say "replace 'capitalists' with 'jews' and leftist sound exactly like nazis, anyways, please donate to my patreon so I can buy insulin this month"
Kinda the point to be honest. It co-opts a feeling everyone has deep down within capitalism that they are being exploiter and ruled over by some.... Entity.
It redirects that feeling to race rather than the bourgeoisie as a means of dividing the proletariat.
Libs love to play madlibs, don't they? Yes, changing the entire context of a claim makes it somehow the same claim.
Chemists say ice becomes water? That's like when alchemists say lead becomes gold. Same thing.
Sadly, people trying to analyze the exact flash-point of jet fuel got lost in the broader question of whether we were being lied into a new Vietnam.
I always kinda laugh at folks who doggedly insist the Twin Towers involved a controlled demolition, because the specs on the building were supposed to make it plane-proof. A seemingly far more likely conclusion - in my mind, at least - was that the Towers weren't as structurally sound as advertised and the architects/inspectors simply lied the problem away. But, like, disappearing several hundred airline passengers and setting up an elaborate array of hologram projectors just seems more credibly than "Building inspector in NYC lied on a safety report."
The twin towers were basically big steel tents. If you have the time these guys go over it pretty thoroughly.
My favorite podcast
Okay, but why did building 7 free-fall into the ground?
It was on fire for a few hours, stuff fell on it from the other towers and it had a weird truss that put extra stress on the building.
But why is that empirically the only time that's ever happened? Even NIST admitted that it was a "new type" of collapse. That's not the first time a building's been on fire for a long time
It's also really weird that Larry Silverstein is on video saying they "made a decision to pull the building". "Pull" is demolitions slang to initiate a demolition.
I'm just paraphrasing these guys (and gal)
Okay, but why is he on tape saying to "pull the building"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
At the very best, WTC7 fell due to fires and the owner of WTC7 decided to troll the world by pretending it was demolished.
At worst, it was actually demolished
edit: could I get a real answer other than a downvote? This is the owner of the building on video saying that they "made the decision to pull the building". I guess we're stanning the Bush admin now
maybe he meant pull as in stop trying to rescue it
I'm 99% convinced that most, if not all popular conspiracy theories come straight from the CIA. Seriously.
Material forces are manifested through human beings tho?
More in the sense that conspiracy theorists make the motivations of their enemies to be inexplicable, unknowable, or simply some nebulous thirst for power. They have to invent an enemy that's not clear, because a clear vision would place blame on the obvious day to day nature of labor and management of resources. A conspiracy theorist has to disregard all of that and instead point to secret organizations or something scifi or supernatural. They can't point at how things are now as anything meaningful. They have to point at some mysterious external force.