Originally posted by cautiouslypessimisticThing is, I have no problem with random acts. I guess it makes me unintelligent to think it is
foolish to try and INTENTIONALLY skew future generations ideas of history. Its really no different that spreading disinfo.
It is natural human nature to place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The need to explain the unexplainable is our modus operandi.
This is the rationale behind all myths, legends, religion and conspiracies.
However, regardless of whether conspiracies exist or do not exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time,
but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' History is
moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities.
If one were wanting to affect History, towards one end or another, one would not do so with implementing a Conspiracy or by positing a Conspiracy
Theory to expose a Conspiracy that may or may not exist. The effects on History would be marginal.
Therefore, if one truly wanted to make a lasting impact upon History, one would do so by attempting to move the broad forces and large structures of
human collectivities. This is what Authors do.
Imagine the cultural impact that Shakespeare has had on the Western World. Are his books of literature based on truth? Of course not. They are
How about the Bible? Does it really matter if Moses climbed Mt. Sinai alone and was given the Torah/Decalogue/10 Commandments by God, Aliens or
chiseled them himself to influence his people? The effect those tablets had on numerous cultures in both the Near East and the West for thousands of
years is profound and wide-reaching and entirely undeniable (for better or for worse). They could have been divinely inscribed by the Hand of God
itself, or they could have been divinely inspired, or more likely, they could have been a well-meaning hoax by Moses himself. It doesn't change or
minimize the profound impact they have had on History.
What about the practice of authors to quote from non-existent fictitious literature? This is a literary device that has been used by Samuel Clemens
(Mark Twain), Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, and just about every Apocryphal writer since the dawn of time (Book of Jasher anyone?).
Heck, the fictitious hoax of the Necronomicon has struck more of a resonant chord in the Collective Consciousness of humanity than the Kennedy
And let's not forget the Book of Mormon. So, Joseph Smith, a treasure hunter and con-man, looks into a hat and sees the Angel Moroni holding Golden
Tablets written in an Angelic language that he can inexplicably read, and recites them to his assistant who writes them down. When his assistant's
wife burns the transcription of one of the chapters, Joseph Smith is unable to recreate it. Still, the Book of Mormon has inspired a religion of 13
Million people to be tied with Judaism as the fifth largest religion worldwide!
And don't even get me started on Scientology that was started by a failed Sci-Fi author!
The intent or meaning of an object, relic, treatise, etc doesn't matter as much as the quest to explain the ojbect, relic, treatise, etc. What is
important is the search to explain the unexplainable...to find meaning where there is no meaning intended. If you want something to influence society
you make it obtuse, hidden, secret, or mysterious and let others find their own meanings to explain it, and in the process take ownership of those
ideas and find relevance to their own time and place. When you do that, you influence History.
Don't blame me for Human Nature. However, can it be blamed that I would consider using Human Nature to create new myths, legends, and conspiracies to
make History where there is none?