Thank your for your thoughtful reply. This is a valid point: "To point out the psychological crutch that conspiratorial thinking may become does not in itself suggest that conspiracies aren't rampant." I also agree with your further point, that, "I'm saying that even in the Conspiracy Myth he did not say anything that would preclude the …
Thank your for your thoughtful reply. This is a valid point: "To point out the psychological crutch that conspiratorial thinking may become does not in itself suggest that conspiracies aren't rampant." I also agree with your further point, that, "I'm saying that even in the Conspiracy Myth he did not say anything that would preclude the existence of an aggregate of power (within alphabet agencies for example) that function as a "deep state" The paragraph you quoted that you regard as proof he didn't believe in a "deep state" does not come across that way to me. People at 3 letter agencies may comprise a "deep state" and ALSO be "puppets of the real power in the world."
However, this wasn't Charles' last word on the matter of conspiracies. Jack Adam Weber, who's recently popped up on these very comment threads, wrote a critique of Charles' Coronation essay, in which he accused Charles of indulging in conspiratorial thinking, and Charles' response was an immediate dismissal of Weber's accusation: "The other day I was amused to read a critique of The Coronation in which the author was absolutely certain that I am a closet conspiracy theorist. He was so persuasive that I myself almost believed it."
He then goes on to write: "What is a conspiracy theory anyway? Sometimes the term is deployed against anyone who questions authority, dissents from dominant paradigms, or thinks that hidden interests influence our leading institutions. As such, it is a way to quash dissent and bully those trying to stand up to abuses of power. One needn’t abandon critical thinking to believe that powerful institutions sometimes collude, conspire, cover up, and are corrupt. If that is what is meant by a conspiracy theory, obviously some of those theories are true. Does anyone remember Enron? Iran-Contra? COINTELPRO? Vioxx? Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"
However, in the context of Covid, he seems to suggest that this isn't relevant, and what is going on in something else, not a conspiracy but merely the appearance of a conspiracy: "During the time of Covid-19, another level of conspiracy theory has risen to prominence that goes way beyond specific stories of collusion and corruption to posit conspiracy as a core explanatory principle for how the world works. Fuelled by the authoritarian response to the pandemic (justifiable or not, lockdown, quarantine, surveillance and tracking, censorship of misinformation, suspension of freedom of assembly and other civil liberties, and so on are indeed authoritarian), this arch-conspiracy theory holds that an evil, power-hungry cabal of insiders deliberately created the pandemic or is at least ruthlessly exploiting it to frighten the public into accepting a totalitarian world government under permanent medical martial law, a New World Order (NWO). Furthermore, this evil group, 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. In other words, they say, everything we are told is a lie, and the world is in the grip of evil."
And to make it clear that he himself doesn't subscribe to this notion (i.e. Weber's charge is invalid), he states: "So what do I think about that theory? I think it is a myth. And what is a myth? A myth is not the same thing as a fantasy or a delusion. Myths are vehicles of truth, and that truth needn’t be literal."
Personally, I don't find it helpful to label an Illuminati conspiracy theory a myth, an archetypical myth rather than a manifestation of paranoia. But whatever. Still, there's a problem here, the same problem I see again and again with Charles. Weber never accused him of believing in the most extreme, outlandish Illuminati conspiracy. So why bring it up? It seems that Eisenstein is incapable of addressing what the other even said. We have a person who doesn't want to be pinned down, his inability to address the actual points made by the other isn't a consequence of the difficulty of the subject matter, but it's some kind of character flaw. The first thing I noted about Charles' response to Weber is that he never addresses himself to anything Weber actually complained about, which has nothing to do with Illuminati type craziness. But Weber also often doesn't take Eisenstein at his word, he quotes certain statements Eisenstein makes and has some strong arguments against Eisenstein's various truth claims, but he keeps claiming Eisenstein also has secret intentions: "Conspiracy theorists are usually easy to identify and easy to debunk. To his credit, Charles Eisenstein is an exception, which makes his rhetoric all the more insidious. He magically mesmerizes, couching his underlying agenda and beliefs (though repeatedly claiming to “not know” anything) in a panoply of pseudo-intellectual smoke and mirrors."
I don't think this is true, about a hidden "underlying agenda," but then again, Charles is so slippery and evasive, always, how do I know? And not evasive because his thought is so complex but because he doesn't like being pinned down and doesn't like to be held to any particular position. Another poster recently described Charles as having a "solipsistic" mind, and that seems true to me.
Charles seems to believe in conspiracy and hidden deception when it suits him. But it also seems to him that he can disown this perspective when it suits him. But if it is simply his own personal preference to believe a conspiracy occurred HERE but did not occur THERE, then surely he needs to start getting specific and stop beating around the bush all the time. He's always warning people against falling into the trap of conspiracy theorizing, even though he himself believes in conspiracies when he feels like it, but doesn't feel it's fair to demand solid and detailed evidence one way or the other, and he immediately issues a solid denial when someone like Weber accuses him of conspiracy theory. There is never any willingness to meet the reader half-way: at some point, he has to stop complaining if he's being misunderstood and start accepting that much of the fault for any confusion and misunderstanding of his views lies with himself and how he typically expresses himself. The lack of clarity, precision, and consistency is in him, not his readership.
Well now that you elaborated I cannot argue agst your overarching point that Charles is deliberately refusing to be pinned down. In style I appreciate a straight shooter like RFK who has put out his views for decades at grave personal cost. (On a personal note, I've been frustrated to be anon through Covid and TDS times but I'm a mother living in a progressive community and my teen daughter has begged me not to get her cancelled -- this is a real backdrop for some of us in these times) In contrast to RFK, Charles' function as a writer is akin to how he described Trump as "a vessel for projection." He's a provocateur, a helpful screen that people can use to launch into their own inquiry. That's how I view his role and why I haven't ultimately cared what his exact beliefs are. Reading his books and essays has prompted questions that fuel my own truth seeking...
Having said that, my guess is that he has been through a process, tumbling down multiple rabbit holes wrt to this quote you cited: "Fuelled by the authoritarian response to the pandemic (justifiable or not, lockdown, quarantine, surveillance and tracking, censorship of misinformation, suspension of freedom of assembly and other civil liberties, and so on are indeed authoritarian), this arch-conspiracy theory holds that an evil, power-hungry cabal of insiders deliberately created the pandemic or is at least ruthlessly exploiting it to frighten the public into accepting a totalitarian world government under permanent medical martial law, a New World Order (NWO). Furthermore, this evil group, 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. In other words, they say, everything we are told is a lie, and the world is in the grip of evil."
I am not friends with him (though have met though mutuals) so I do not know his process. But sometimes reality is stranger than we imagine. And to reiterate what I said earlier: there are psychological underpinnings and hazards on either side of this divide - assuming there are some grand-ish conspiracies involving evil intent towards humans but projecting that evil onto everything you see and esp *not holding a vision that transcends it* OR assuming we are living in the worst case of Hanlon's razor ever, staggering stupidity on every level of decision making, but no need to confront evil, either within or without.
Thank your for your thoughtful reply. This is a valid point: "To point out the psychological crutch that conspiratorial thinking may become does not in itself suggest that conspiracies aren't rampant." I also agree with your further point, that, "I'm saying that even in the Conspiracy Myth he did not say anything that would preclude the existence of an aggregate of power (within alphabet agencies for example) that function as a "deep state" The paragraph you quoted that you regard as proof he didn't believe in a "deep state" does not come across that way to me. People at 3 letter agencies may comprise a "deep state" and ALSO be "puppets of the real power in the world."
However, this wasn't Charles' last word on the matter of conspiracies. Jack Adam Weber, who's recently popped up on these very comment threads, wrote a critique of Charles' Coronation essay, in which he accused Charles of indulging in conspiratorial thinking, and Charles' response was an immediate dismissal of Weber's accusation: "The other day I was amused to read a critique of The Coronation in which the author was absolutely certain that I am a closet conspiracy theorist. He was so persuasive that I myself almost believed it."
He then goes on to write: "What is a conspiracy theory anyway? Sometimes the term is deployed against anyone who questions authority, dissents from dominant paradigms, or thinks that hidden interests influence our leading institutions. As such, it is a way to quash dissent and bully those trying to stand up to abuses of power. One needn’t abandon critical thinking to believe that powerful institutions sometimes collude, conspire, cover up, and are corrupt. If that is what is meant by a conspiracy theory, obviously some of those theories are true. Does anyone remember Enron? Iran-Contra? COINTELPRO? Vioxx? Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"
However, in the context of Covid, he seems to suggest that this isn't relevant, and what is going on in something else, not a conspiracy but merely the appearance of a conspiracy: "During the time of Covid-19, another level of conspiracy theory has risen to prominence that goes way beyond specific stories of collusion and corruption to posit conspiracy as a core explanatory principle for how the world works. Fuelled by the authoritarian response to the pandemic (justifiable or not, lockdown, quarantine, surveillance and tracking, censorship of misinformation, suspension of freedom of assembly and other civil liberties, and so on are indeed authoritarian), this arch-conspiracy theory holds that an evil, power-hungry cabal of insiders deliberately created the pandemic or is at least ruthlessly exploiting it to frighten the public into accepting a totalitarian world government under permanent medical martial law, a New World Order (NWO). Furthermore, this evil group, 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. In other words, they say, everything we are told is a lie, and the world is in the grip of evil."
And to make it clear that he himself doesn't subscribe to this notion (i.e. Weber's charge is invalid), he states: "So what do I think about that theory? I think it is a myth. And what is a myth? A myth is not the same thing as a fantasy or a delusion. Myths are vehicles of truth, and that truth needn’t be literal."
Personally, I don't find it helpful to label an Illuminati conspiracy theory a myth, an archetypical myth rather than a manifestation of paranoia. But whatever. Still, there's a problem here, the same problem I see again and again with Charles. Weber never accused him of believing in the most extreme, outlandish Illuminati conspiracy. So why bring it up? It seems that Eisenstein is incapable of addressing what the other even said. We have a person who doesn't want to be pinned down, his inability to address the actual points made by the other isn't a consequence of the difficulty of the subject matter, but it's some kind of character flaw. The first thing I noted about Charles' response to Weber is that he never addresses himself to anything Weber actually complained about, which has nothing to do with Illuminati type craziness. But Weber also often doesn't take Eisenstein at his word, he quotes certain statements Eisenstein makes and has some strong arguments against Eisenstein's various truth claims, but he keeps claiming Eisenstein also has secret intentions: "Conspiracy theorists are usually easy to identify and easy to debunk. To his credit, Charles Eisenstein is an exception, which makes his rhetoric all the more insidious. He magically mesmerizes, couching his underlying agenda and beliefs (though repeatedly claiming to “not know” anything) in a panoply of pseudo-intellectual smoke and mirrors."
I don't think this is true, about a hidden "underlying agenda," but then again, Charles is so slippery and evasive, always, how do I know? And not evasive because his thought is so complex but because he doesn't like being pinned down and doesn't like to be held to any particular position. Another poster recently described Charles as having a "solipsistic" mind, and that seems true to me.
Charles seems to believe in conspiracy and hidden deception when it suits him. But it also seems to him that he can disown this perspective when it suits him. But if it is simply his own personal preference to believe a conspiracy occurred HERE but did not occur THERE, then surely he needs to start getting specific and stop beating around the bush all the time. He's always warning people against falling into the trap of conspiracy theorizing, even though he himself believes in conspiracies when he feels like it, but doesn't feel it's fair to demand solid and detailed evidence one way or the other, and he immediately issues a solid denial when someone like Weber accuses him of conspiracy theory. There is never any willingness to meet the reader half-way: at some point, he has to stop complaining if he's being misunderstood and start accepting that much of the fault for any confusion and misunderstanding of his views lies with himself and how he typically expresses himself. The lack of clarity, precision, and consistency is in him, not his readership.
Well now that you elaborated I cannot argue agst your overarching point that Charles is deliberately refusing to be pinned down. In style I appreciate a straight shooter like RFK who has put out his views for decades at grave personal cost. (On a personal note, I've been frustrated to be anon through Covid and TDS times but I'm a mother living in a progressive community and my teen daughter has begged me not to get her cancelled -- this is a real backdrop for some of us in these times) In contrast to RFK, Charles' function as a writer is akin to how he described Trump as "a vessel for projection." He's a provocateur, a helpful screen that people can use to launch into their own inquiry. That's how I view his role and why I haven't ultimately cared what his exact beliefs are. Reading his books and essays has prompted questions that fuel my own truth seeking...
Having said that, my guess is that he has been through a process, tumbling down multiple rabbit holes wrt to this quote you cited: "Fuelled by the authoritarian response to the pandemic (justifiable or not, lockdown, quarantine, surveillance and tracking, censorship of misinformation, suspension of freedom of assembly and other civil liberties, and so on are indeed authoritarian), this arch-conspiracy theory holds that an evil, power-hungry cabal of insiders deliberately created the pandemic or is at least ruthlessly exploiting it to frighten the public into accepting a totalitarian world government under permanent medical martial law, a New World Order (NWO). Furthermore, this evil group, 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. In other words, they say, everything we are told is a lie, and the world is in the grip of evil."
I am not friends with him (though have met though mutuals) so I do not know his process. But sometimes reality is stranger than we imagine. And to reiterate what I said earlier: there are psychological underpinnings and hazards on either side of this divide - assuming there are some grand-ish conspiracies involving evil intent towards humans but projecting that evil onto everything you see and esp *not holding a vision that transcends it* OR assuming we are living in the worst case of Hanlon's razor ever, staggering stupidity on every level of decision making, but no need to confront evil, either within or without.
Anyway cheers to you in your seeking!
Thought provoking.