Blowing Charles Eisenstein's essay "The Conspiracy Myth" out of the water.
My partner passed me an essay written by Charles Eisenstein titled ‘the conspiracy myth’. As I am very interested in how things are being labelled these days, I was keen to know his thoughts. I had come across his work before and he seemed a well-balanced commentator, plus another view from the bridge is always a good idea. After first reading it I thought it was well written as it offered new and different ways at looking at what constitutes a conspiracy myth these days. Then later on, as I walking through the fields, I had a different opinion and that was that this piece, was a load of bollocks!
You know sometimes we read something and it doesn’t fully soak in because you may be blindsided by the packaging, and this is the case with this piece by Charles. He writes so well in many ways. Sentences ‘choc’ full of information and well laced together with a sprig of cinnamon thrown in but as my brain fully discarded the packaging the essence of what he wrote was poor, very poor. I felt a little bit silly for first thinking it was a nuanced piece.
Let me clarify. He starts by saying that ‘powerful institutions sometimes collude, conspire, cover up, and are corrupt’.
Immediately, the first thing I noticed in this essay is that he uses cosy language to try and persuade the reader that institutions normally pursue only solid ethical work, and if an anomaly occurs, then that would be entirely accidental. Or perhaps a by-product of over-enthusiasm. I disagree. I think that most powerful institutions want power, big power, and will do anything to get it, keep it, and increase it. Morals and service come much further down the pecking order.
Then he goes on to say that ‘this illuminati pulls the strings of all major governments, corporations, the united nations, the WHO, the CDC, the media, the intelligence services, the banks and the NGOs. Followed by ‘everything we are told is a lie, and the world is in the grip of evil’. His quick conclusion is that all this style of thinking is all a myth.
I like how in some sentences, again when it suits him, he will use multiple references but in this sentence he uses only one reference and that is the illuminati. He could have added
The knights templar the freemasons the Bilderberg group Skulls and bones society etc etc (which by the way, secret society groups have featured up to 20 out of the 45 US presidents as their members) He could have embellished the point that there are so many secret groups in our world made up of lots of incredibly powerful and wealthy people. That they have been meeting up for eons and they do it all in secret. The secret bit is of course were plans are hatched and progress is regularly updated. If this were not the case then they wouldn’t need to be held in secret. For example, when I go and meet my mum I do it at a café or a restaurant where we talk openly about world affairs and gossip. If we were hatching plans about world domination then we might not get a middle table in Wagamama’s. And just in case Charles has never been to a meeting I can confirm that they are about trying to influence the future outcome of all those present at the meeting.
Try imagining potential outcomes of meetings where those present hold unimaginable power, money and sway. You know little things like global economic lockdown because of a killer pandemic might be featured in ‘points to discuss’.
Another quote of his states ‘it demonstrates the shocking extent of public alienation from institutions of authority’. Well duh! People are pissed off with institutions because they constantly lie to us but always pretend to be on our side. What is shocking about this quote is that he finds it shocking that people tend to be wary of repeat liars.
Later he states:
‘our institutions of knowledge production have betrayed public trust repeatedly, as have our political institutions’.
Okay I’m lost with these 2 contradicting statements here.
Later in his piece he states that most people won’t believe anything that comes from institutions now and that ‘this must be frustrating to the scrupulous doctor, scientist, or public official’
Yes, I suppose it would be – but what is your point here Charles? – oh none – I’ll move on.
Then he moves in for a classic bit of clevery (yes, I just made that word up – but it describes his work so aptly) when he states that there is a belief in some that an inhuman power governs the world. His magical conclusive response to this thinking is this:
‘therein, lies a certain psychological comfort, because now there is someone to blame in a familiar us-versus-them narrative and victim-perpetrator - rescuer psychology.’
Oh I see, so if we dare to even question what secret groups may be up to, then that means we suffer from victim-perpetrator-rescuer syndrome. I’m sorry Charles to be so base but this is proper twisty bollocks of the highest order.
He then really opens up the throttle on what he’s all about when he drops this into the article.
‘a couple of weeks ago I was on a call with a person who had a high position in the Obama administration and who still runs in elite circles. He said ‘there is no one driving the bus’
1) Name dropping – ooohhh this guy - he really matters!
2) Obama is pure scum
3) One unnamed person said that no one is diving the bus – well that wraps it all up then! Don’t know what I could have been thinking – thanks for clearing that all up for me Columbo – see you for next week’s episode.
So, no one is driving the bus Charles heh?
How about a quick update. The Fed controls the issue of money. The army and police control dissent. The lobbyists influence the outcome of politics. The media controls majority thinking. The corporations have us all running ragged in a rigged system which ensures flow of money and power from the ground up. Multiple powerful groups hold secret meetings all over the world which control all the assets and are shaping all our futures. But you want us to believe with your ‘hot cocoa’ cosy language that no-one is driving the bus? Un-frigging-believable Charles. You should star in a naivety play where you came on as an unwise man and bring the gift of non’franken’sense.
But his droplets of cosiness don’t end there.
‘that society’s main institutions, while flawed, are shepherding us ever closer to a high-tech paradise.’ I find the use of the word paradise here as quite a bit of a stretch. Technological advancement, which seems to control, dictate, shape and intervene whenever it wants to may be someone else’s paradise but not mine. Is what he is trying to imply here is that there may be a few mistakes made along the way but the end goal is paradise so we really needn’t worry!
I mean seriously, at this point I should already wrap up and call this guy for what he really is and that is: he is a paid assassin. Because you are paid Charles, aren’t you? You have been paid somewhere down the line for writing and disseminating this awful, shameful piece of diatribe!
But let’s go on a bit because this guy really starts to excel in sociopathic delivery of content. Each twist he offers would make a contortionist blush! Regarding the war in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction rhetoric he states ‘the media needed little encouragement to start beating the war drums. They knew what to do already, without having to receive instructions. I don’t think very many journalists actually believed the WMD lie. They pretended to believe, because subconsciously, they knew that was the establishment narrative. That was what would get them recognised as serious journalists. That’s what would give them access to power. That is what would allow them to keep their jobs and advance their careers.’
The above non-sensical paragraph, both in its delivery and in actual meaning, is the reason why trust has gone from our media so thanks for pointing this out, even though that wasn’t the point you were trying to make here.
Finally, he makes a comment I can agree on -
‘have you ever noticed that events seem to organise themselves to validate the story you hold about the world?’ Of this I fully agree, and I constantly try to challenge my way of thinking because I could be wrong, due to my rebellious nature, which will obviously distort how I view the world. I just feel there is enough evidence, in plain sight, for people to think that something is seriously amok.
I boil it all down to these 3 options.
a) The people in power and the systems/infrastructures they sit in are frigging useless and serve them very well and the rest of us, including animals and the planet, poorly.
b) Their actions throughout history and again with Covid 19 demonstrate that money and power come before people’s lives, health and standard of living
c) There are very sinister forces at play behind the curtain
Regardless of which option sits with you the most. Surely most of us can agree that reform away from the status quo is long overdue, and all Charles Eisentstein’s piece does is take one giant wooden spoon and ‘muddies’ the water around what is believable and what is not.
He even ‘muddies’ the water around the meaning of the word conspiracy.
Let’s look at the word conspiracy - it means a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So, we have secret groups meeting and plotting- tick -and we currently have most of our freedoms taken away. Harmful - Tick.
The second description of a conspiracy, is the action of plotting or conspiring. So when Facebook was caught selling our data, that was an example of previous plotting, that was caught at a later date. Which means, if before they were caught, you held a theory about them plotting to do harmful work against their customers you would have been labelled as a conspiracy theorist, but the fact is you would have been proven right.
Let us take a look at another example of a ‘cutesy’ institution called Google who paraded themselves as a search engine for all of us, looking to increase value in our lives with free information. Now they censor anyone who has alternative views on just about any subject you can imagine, especially the Covid19 one. Google have now moved into being a pharmaceutical company by investing $715 million dollars into the development of bioelectronic medicines. their new firm is being chaired by Glaxo’s former chairman of its global vaccine business. Google owns Youtube as well, which has been banning documentaries that have an alternative view on vaccines. But according to Charles there is nothing to see here on the road to paradise.
So ‘cutesy’ has gone out of the window now, and been firmly replaced by being oppressive. These giant corporations are like the mafia in reverse. They start with a great reputation but it gets worse and worse as they become more powerful. This very familiar institutional trait feeds into my earlier assertion that all powerful institutions want is more power. Ethics and service come further down the list of priorities for them.
In the end Charles we are all plotting and we are all wearing a mask. It is only when we drop the mask, or the mask is removed, that we reveal our true identity and our true mission.
I am minded by the story of Russell Brand who hatched his plan many years ago while out drinking in London. He decided he would get rich and famous first and then use that platform to try and start a peaceful revolution. And that’s exactly what he did. That’s a conspiracy which I really like. And If we look at Facebook and Google, they were never about enhancing people’s lives and connecting people in a new ‘cutesy’ way. They were always about untold power, masquerading as the former.
And finally, to you Charles Eisenstein. You are a paid assassin pretending to be a libertarian and free thinker. Your mask is on very tight and your plotting is in full swing.
But don’t worry Charles I can lower your mask for you.