One of the great fantasies of the conspiracy theorist and counter-culturalist is that their actions not only affect the wider world, but arouse the wrath of the government control mechanism. It sets their (our) actions and ideals in a heroic context of struggle against the odds. But is this really an accurate picture of what’s going on?

A common tale you’ll hear among many “New World Order”-type conspiracists is that at some point in the not-too-distant future, an engineered cataclysm will occur, and all the dissenters or dissidents will be rounded up and silenced, either by death or internment in state-sponsored prison camps.

Now, such things can and do happen, so I’m not here to argue against that. Nor am I here to argue about the reality of the NWO agenda. What I do want to ask though is: Dissent, is it really as dangerous as we make it out to be? What are the practical effects of publicly disagreeing with government policy or action in a nation (or world) such as ours? On some level, widespread disagreement makes it harder to implement policies. That much seems obvious, but what else does it do?

Jeremy is always quoting (I think) author Jacques Ellul who said that a new technology always expands to cover all it’s possible uses, both positive and negative. For example, atomic fission was used for both the creation of bombs and power plants. Such expansion seems largely inavoidable, and the point is that the technology itself is inherently neutral. What about ideas themselves? Are ideas also neutral? When a new idea is introduced into a culture, doesn’t the idea also expand to fill all possible applications?

Dissent, or the non-acceptance of an idea, would thus be inevitable from a strictly practical standpoint. When a new idea hits the scene, some people are going to love it, some are going to hate it, and some people are going to run off in totally weird directions with it. In some ways, I wonder if this intense positive/negative polarity that accompanies ideas is actually what brings them into their fullest expression and manifestation in reality. In other words, when Dr. Frankenstein wanted to bring his monster to life, he attached one positive and one negative cable to each of the monster’s nodes. The resulting surge of electricity animated the corpse.

The negative charge that the monster received didn’t harm him. In fact, it served to provide a pathway for the current to flow across. Can we use this analogy to say that dissent isn’t (necessarily) dangerous, but that it functions in concert with positive supporting opinion to provide a pathway for current to flow across and animate a culture?

What I’m wondering is basically: is the “dissent” of conspiracy theorists, activists and counter-culturalists not only necessary for government, but somehow designed to occur? People talk about disinformation agents and propagandists spreading lies and distortions to “mislead” investigators and seekers after the truth. But maybe what they are doing is setting a particular location for the reverse polarity to flow to. People who are interested in the truth then spend their time trying to “debunk” disinformation and see through the lies. But are they really just helping to direct the electrical current?

A simpler way to explain this might just be to talk about framing debates. I had the television on last night for about five minute before Bush came on and announced the candidacy of Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court. I was sort of surprised to hear the reporter before-hand say:

The White House wants the debate to center around his qualifications, and not his ideology.

Standing in front of the White House, I realized this reporter was nothing more than an avatar of that institution which he claimed to be merely “commenting on”. His message indicated how policies are instituted in such a way as to not only allow for but inspire dissent according to a specific channel. They essentially said, we’ll entertain one narrow type of dissent only, chosen because it suits our purposes. Their purposes of course are to prove that he’s qualified and push him through to an appointment. The same thing seems to happen with the two party system in general. Watch a news program like the Lehrer News Hour on PBS (sorry, I don’t get cable), and you’ll see these two grinning idiots arguing and seeming to dissent on a whole variety of Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal issues. But what they are really doing is locating the reverse polarities, and setting up a channel for the electricity to flow between.

I’ve even noticed the same thing occur in my own writing. A great example would be the “occult evangelization” debate which was extremely heated, and spawned several responses on sites outside this one. I didn’t really design it like this on purpose, but what happened was almost like jumpstarting a car battery. Intensely positive views and intensely negative views flared up, fought it out, meshed together, and finally cleared away to allow for a really effective, highly productive conversation to finally ensue. In this case, dissent to my original viewpoint wasn’t really dangerous at all. It helped to define the boundaries of the playing field and drive the object ball into the goal.

This is just one way of looking at it of course. I’m merely trying to offer counter-point to the average conspiratorial viewpoint of what happens to dissenters. If you want to prove to me how we’re all going to be rounded up like cattle, then do feel free. Just remember: if I played my cards right in this article, then I’ve already framed the debate in such a way that the range of opinions from positive to negative will merely serve to fuel my sinister purposes.