A couple people brought up the phrase “deep politics” as a euphemism/update to replace the term “conspiracy theory” in the public discourse. Professor Pan says: “‘Deep Politics’ is much more palatable — it implies a depth, and hidden activity, without implying an overarching cabal of puppeteers.” And Jeff explains: “conspiracy is the hypothesis; Deep Politics is the theory.”
Again, I think retooling the public conception of conspiracy theory most likely requires a many-level strategy, and the use of the term “deep politics” is probably a useful element within that. But does deep politics basically neuter the scope of conspiracy theory? If you’re into deep politics, can you really reasonably spend your time chasing magickians and UFO’s, which both Jeff and Prof. Pan seem to do regularly (and which I personally enjoy). Fact is, politics is one thing, and magick and UFO’s (and the rest) are something totally different.
If deep politics is to survive and grow as a discipline of it’s own, is it going to have to draw lines around what is and isn’t allowed to be studied? That seems to be the case to me. Otherwise, it’s going to draw the same snide remarks as conspiracy theory already does. The reason people ridicule conspiracy theory is not because people are looking for alternate explanations. It’s because in doing that, people get into some CRAZY ASS SHIT! Myself included. Once you start down a path asking questions and probing what reality really is, it becomes almost dishonest to draw an arbitrary line in the sand about what on the conspiracy spectrum is acceptable and what is not.
I’m not saying don’t use the term deep politics. But I am saying, figure out what deep politics is and what deep politics isn’t. Or else “the bad guys” are going to figure out what that is for you, and then just accuse you of “deep politics” and that’s going to become the new way to make fun of you. The other problem I see in this is that it’s going to necessarily fracture conspiracy theory researchers. As if that mattered, but whatever. What I mean is that all of a sudden, we’re going to see people whining: “I’m not a conspiracy theorist - I’m into deep politics!” And soon people into deep politics are going to accuse other people further down the spectrum of being conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile the deep politics crowd will seek to gain social acceptance and recognition as a legitimate source of information. And thus, like the regular media, they will close themselves off from researching various topics to avoid losing that recognition. Is there any way out of this pickle?
Something that I think might be useful in untangling this situation was left in my comments by Andy Bradbury who runs an NLP website. He’s talking about the aim of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (as used in therapeutic settings on individuals), but the thinking espoused here might be useful in moving forward in regard to conspiracy theory/deep politics:
So if you dig back into someone’s past, all you do is re-inforce the pathways that lie at the root of the problem. The more effective approach, according to the NLP problem-solving model, is “What do you have now? What do you want? How can you get from where you are to where you want to be? Before you set out, define some basic criteria that will let you know when you’ve achieved what you wanted†and so on. In other words, the emphasis is on building new paths rather than wasting effort on exploring or trying to destroy old paths.
I’ve touched on this samething elsewhere in my article: Colonel Mustard With the Candlestick. I think we really need to sit down and think about what it is we want, whether it’s out of conspiracy theory, or deep politics. How will we know when we’re successful? Is there any such thing as success or is it endless rabbit holes upon rabbit holes? There’s much more going on here than just politics or conspiracy, and we need to figure out what that is.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Conspiracy Theory, Parapolitics, Whining
- What’s the Agenda of Coast to Coast AM?
- Inner Politics
- The Cloth
- Reader Response about Coast to Coast
9 Comments
Good point, that, about neutering the scope. “Deep politics” would seem to be a subset of what we’re pursuing. It’s probably too narrowcasting a term to encompass a great deal of the “High Weird,” except for how the Weird impinges upon the political realm.
I think the other thing that desperately needs to be addressed is the fact that the “High Weirdness” aspects so frequently have characteristics of interior AND exterior experience: a UFO abduction might match a Jungian dream analysis, for example. People readily ask in these cases if whatever’s happening is in whole or in part a fantasy of the experiencer. But noone asks that question of people on the “deep politics” side, of whether or not the things that they are perceiving are really exterior realities in the world, or if they are interior realities projected outward
or is its even possible to distinguish between the two?
one seriously unfair part in the game is that i do think alot of those involved with the “conspiracy” are already aware & manipulate principles that in the mainstream are brushed off as impossibilities & fiction (although the common person is usually a believer in high weirdness to some degree…)
you know what i think a common element to all this stuff is? pattern recognition. when it comes down to it, we’re all engaging in connecting events that seem unconnected to the ‘average joe.’
Well that’s the next step in the argument I was constructing. And the fact is, I don’t think it’s possible to separate them. And in some instances, I don’t even know that it’s going to be worthwhile. That’s why I got into that whole “conspiracy theory as inner alchemy” kick a while back.
it`s impossible to tell a sufficiently accurate emulation(fantasy) from reality simply because our nervous system responds to sufficient stimulus in the same way, whether the information is analog or digital. the media knows this and delivers simulations designed to elicit responses in us that we accept as real. then we buy things accordingly. or vote.
how can we tell if we`ve succeeded? we have to build an accurate model of desire of outcome. if someone says to me that they want to lose 25 pounds quickly, i`m going to get the saw out as if to remove one of thier legs. why? because given the question that would be the most expedient way to reduce wieght. formulating precise questions gives the mind the right instructions to find the solution to the problem.
Yeah, its called mirror neurons. They discovered that the same area of the brain is activated during an activity as it is while watching that activity performed by someone else, as is by simply thinking about that activity.
Exactly, otherwise we’re just circling around forever. So what is it that any of us wants to happen?
we want the heavens to open up and for god to speak in that deep basso profundo,”go forth and multiply” and we will grovel in awe…………….no, really, we want have some feeling of control, some feeling of relaxation, and some feeling that there isn`t some malicious bastard or bastess trying to cut our balls off.
an accurate model of outcome. someone to come along and show people how to build thier own personal manifest destiny. starting in fucking grade school where children`s minds are wide open and can chunk up concepts in a nano-second and hand them back to you in ways that you can`t begin to imagine, children are geniuses. they are our only hope, yet we treat them like labrats.
i discipline myself to play halo2 with my six-year old because as fast as i can adapt he has a new strategy to kick my ass. we shouldn`t be teaching these kids how to finger paint, we should be teaching them computer languages and physics concepts before thier brains solidify into anger and resentment loops like thier handlers.
i wish i could find information on how to teach my children computer programming. is there anything out there for pre-teens?
Oh I’m sure there is something to teach kids programming, I’ll have a look around, as I’ve been around that block myself. I never did really grasp it as a kid though. All I really had to mess around with was QBasic