The main obstacle to uncovering true coherence is the imposition of false coherence. Most conspiracy theories fall into this trap, by trying to paint a picture before all the facts are in and betraying the researcher’s own bias. Real coherence is what I’m after, and since emotional knee-jerk reactions (such as the desire to assign blame) prevent that, the resistance to coherence has to be factored into every attempt to establish it. In other words, any halfway coherent picture must include a clear acknowledgment of its inevitable incoherence.
One might ask, for example, if the Fabians have a global agenda, why are they “associated” with the Labor party? Is that really coherent? Doesn’t it only reinforce the idea of a genuine division in the factions of power, since if the conservative party was “Fabian free,” then every time they got into power they would threaten to undo the “Fabian agenda” which is supposed to be multigenerational? Ergo, Fabians must have infiltrated the conservative party too, and be pushing more moralistic, overtly capitalist agendas at the same time it is doing the opposite. Either that, or the Fabian Society is just another collective of useful idiots being employed by even more covert groups, to further yet more unfathomable ends.
I think it has even been set up this way (incoherence posing as coherence), to keep us hopping from one foot to the other trying to identify the “bad guys.” The agendas in question aren’t limited to social or political agendas or confined to any specific groups or individuals, but rather cross-pollinate over generations, cultures, creeds, and philosophies. It may even be that keeping us “hopping” is the primary purpose of every ideology: to prevent us from ever planting both feet on the ground and figuring out what we know is true and real. And so the tensions of a divided loyalty in the collective psyche, between “good” and “evil,” “right” and “wrong,” liberalism and fascism, collectivism and individualism (mother and father), keep us marching, in lockstep and en masse, into barracks or battlefield, to the never-ending beat of “Left, right, left, right!”
When I was growing up, Mary Whitehouse was a despised name in our household —a Christian conservative tight-ass whining about “family values” behind which lurked a fear and hatred of homosexuals and all other kinds of “deviance” (i.e., difference). The National Front was seen as even more beyond the pale, a bunch of moronic, Neo-Nazi skinheads. But looking at the history P.I.E. (the Paedophile Information Exchange), it turns out that Mary Whitehouse & the National Front were two of the fiercest voices speaking out against the group. Does this make them the good guys? Does the fact the Nazis had the Fabians on their hit-list mean the Fabians were the good guys? If a cop is being nice to us, promising to protect us from another cop who wants to beat us up with a phonebook, does that mean he is our friend, with our best interests at heart? The most immediately coherent explanation is rarely the correct one.
Mother and father (or father & grandfather) battle for control of the child’s psyche while they unconsciously wrestle with their own demon-traumata. Neither have the psychic welfare of the child at heart, even if both of them believe they do. Cops may really believe in the guilt of the suspect, too, as they torture and coerce him into a false confession. For the child it’s a lose-lose situation. Any allegiance at all is a kind of betrayal, because the demand to choose allegiance in such a situation is itself a betrayal (a child needs support from all its family members; it doesn’t need to be turned into a psychic territory being fought over). Betrayal can only be met with betrayal. To meet the demands of those that betray us, we learn to betray ourselves; that’s why the conspiracy is everywhere, and why no one can be trusted—because we can’t trust ourselves.
The basis for all manner of anti-nature, body-denying totalitarian political movements seems to be the primary split between conscious and unconscious, mind and body (father & mother?). Yet these social movements make no bones about employing apparently nature-worshiping, body-conscious, libertarian and progressive ideas and cultural memes to maintain and increase that split. Maybe some of the individuals involved in these movements believe this is the only way to heal the split. Maybe they know something we don’t and aren’t simply deluded psychopaths in philanthropists’ clothing. (It’s best not to reach a verdict—claim total coherence—until the jury’s all in, no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be.)
Too much theorizing about conspiracy (which is a reaching for coherence) takes us away from the facts. My main conscious aim is to remove the sheep’s clothing to get a better look at the big, bad wolf. Maybe along the way I can figure out why so many wolves need to dress up as sheep and how aware they are of having done so. Isn’t that the perennial mystery—what is unconscious motivation (self-deception) and what is conscious concealment, the deception of others? When is apparent coherence just a cover for a deeper, more disturbing coherence, making it incoherence disguised as coherence?
The line is always moving, either towards transparency or away from it, depending on our willingness and capacity to be honest with ourselves (and own up to our incoherence). The whole notion of using ignoble means to justify noble ends is what power politics is all about, and it’s a close match, a cover-story really, for using conscious rationales as rationalizations for unconscious drives.
When I look at the dastardly plots of these Fabian wolves dressed up as Socialist sheep, or whatever, I know that I am looking at a magnified mirror of my own psyche, and that’s the only reason I am so compelled to look. It’s a bit like finding a family member in the echelons of the Illuminati: what is there to do except look closer? Like Jack Torrance at the Overlook, we may find our own image staring back from the photograph.
Getting back to some specifics, I recently followed a comment at my blog to another blog, Groupname for Grapejuice where I read a couple of well-written and thoughtful posts (by znore) about Jan Irvin and Joe Atwill’s somewhat controversial thesis, “Manufacturing the Deadhead.” While znore is sympathetic to their premise, he considers it exaggerated, and from what I know Irvin has come under quite a bit of attack for his work. It’s easy to see why, or at least why people would want to refute the suggestion that something as vast and multi-layered as a worldwide social movement could “all” be the “result” of a “psy-op.” Not only countless individuals but even the planets and stars are involved in such movements, not just Machiavellian groups of human beings (or alien ones), so unless the psy-operatives can also control the celestial bodies, it’s safe to say they aren’t the final, total creators of what’s happening. However, I think it is reasonable to suppose that there are structures—both social and psychological, internal and external—in place on this planet that ensure, in an almost total fashion, that any and all movements, at least when they gain sufficient “mass” and momentum to threaten large-scale social change, are shaped and directed by these structures toward foreseeable outcomes. A master chess player doesn’t have to control the movements of his opponent, only narrow the options enough to have the necessary counter-move ready at all times.
At znore’s blog, there’s a quote from Dennis McKenna, in response to Irvin’s contention that Terence McKenna was a CIA agent:
I just feel kind of sorry for Jan, actually. He seems to have this need to see conspiracies where none exist. . . . This is the web of delusion that you can fall into if you’re not careful and I think he has. . . . It looks like pathology to me, and a lot of people see that. But then Jan will say, well, you won’t go through these 20 databases that I’ve sent you and these 200 links. And you’ve got to understand, no Jan I won’t, because for one thing I don’t have time and the fact there are connections does not necessarily a conspiracy make. I mean, yeah, Terence talked at Esalen and Aldous Huxley talked at Esalen that doesn’t mean that Esalen is involved in some plot for world domination. . . . I just don’t buy it. It just seems like a waste of time. . . . I would think I would know that [Terence was an agent]. I would think he would have said something. You know, we were close. But then maybe he was but he didn’t even know he was. I don’t think so. I don’t know if you’ve seen Jan’s website? What is that? This is . . . like the [Terence’s] Timewave in a way—this elaborate model that you come up with that explains all and everything if you could just see it. I’m not seeing it, Jan, sorry.
On reading this I felt exasperation bordering on anger. Either Dennis McKenna is extremely naive or he is being disingenuous. A comment like, “I mean, yeah, Terence talked at Esalen and Aldous Huxley talked at Esalen that doesn’t mean that Esalen is involved in some plot for world domination” seems meant to trivialize the whole subject and exposes McKenna’s bias. I haven’t read much of Irvin’s material, and while I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he was drawing an overly literal, simplistic picture, deliberately or otherwise, I’m fairly sure he’s not expressing anything as childish as McKenna suggests. As for Irvin being pathological, isn’t that what “they” always say? It’s a non-denial denial and a form of (soft) character assassination that dismisses the arguer in the most demeaning way (under the guise of sympathy) without properly addressing the arguments being put forth. Bleh to Dennis M.
Conspiracy/espionage research can be overwhelming when we begin to see the extent of the deception. Resorting to shoving endless databases at anyone who disagrees so as to “prove” one’s position, as Irvin does, is one symptom of such overwhelm. Scoffing at it as nuts is another symptom. The temptation to take refuge in absolutism (“It’s all a Plot!” or “It looks like pathology”) may be nigh-irresistible for most researchers after a certain point, because the alternative is to try and understand and convey every nuance and intricacy of the conspiracy: how we have been deceived, and, most painful of all, how we have been made complicit with the deception. To do so requires the sort of patience, dedication, and wisdom that (I imagine) not even the arch-deceivers themselves possess, as individuals at least, though as groups they can span generations.
Whether or not Terence McKenna was a knowing agent of this or that agency or agenda is less important than how he and his ideas may have been used by the same. And McKenna, like Huxley, like Leary, like Manson, certainly seem to have been useful, at least if it can be shown that some of the ideas they put forth were successfully incorporated into social movements that served larger, more shadowy interests. And I think it can be shown, quite clearly. So then we are forced to consider that there are many “useful idiots,” gainfully employed by agencies which they might even be consciously opposed to, at least in the beginning. To be a useful idiot, it’s not necessary to be an idiot (ordinary idiots would be of little use to the power elite). Many “unwitting shills” may be allowed to see more of the scope of the “operation” over time, as they are deemed ready and “fit” to do so. This way, over time, they can become witting shills.
I find one sure way to gauge the level of an individual’s involvement with the darker side of these social movements is to look into their sexual proclivities. Sexual proclivities tend to unite many players who might otherwise seem to be on opposite sides of the fence—because what could be a more intimate form of involvement than sexual involvement? At the same time, one way that potential recruits are “screened” for “fitness” is by involving them in illegal sexual activities, not only to identify them as being made of “the right stuff,” but as a means to control them thereafter.
The trouble with looking into people’s sexual proclivities is that, by definition, these are the areas that are most carefully concealed from view. Yet I think that any far-reaching theory of conspiracy that doesn’t include the sexual preferences of its participants at, or close to, its center is probably a bit like the authorized biography of Tom Cruise: not worth spending too much time on.