PDA

View Full Version : Was Pierre Bellic right? (SPOILERS)



Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 05:19 AM
Basically, what the title says?

Did he do the right thing going after the Mentor?

Was peace with the Templars stupid?

Was he right to purge the Brotherhood?

(Little as killing one man can be called it)

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 06:16 AM
Basically, what the title says?

Did he do the right thing going after the Mentor?

Was peace with the Templars stupid?

Was he right to purge the Brotherhood?

(Little as killing one man can be called it)

Solely as the plot of UNITY goes, Bellec has a point. Mirabeau (that is game-Mirabeau not Historical-Mirabeau) was a bad Mentor, worse even than ROGUE-Achilles. He made the Assassins into this weird cult-like organization full of rituals as opposed to something that functions on the ground among the people, as such he let the Templars co-opt the popular movement of the French Revolution. Then he started this peace with the Templar leader de la Serre but then sits on his a-- after the latter dies. He also keeps shouting down the other Assassins and then goes behind their back to scheme with the King. Mirabeau's also a snob, that guy Rouille became a Templar because the great Mirabeau refused to shake his lowly hand. That's granted, a comic-book villain origin as far as "Why-I-Became-A-Templar" goes but the implication is clear.

Moreover, Mirabeau doesn't understand his fellow Assassins, he doesn't read Pierre Bellec well enough to say, "Pierre, I am sending you to America on a very important but time consuming mission where you will serve under your man-crush Connor who might prove to be less blood-thirsty than you assume he is and so teach you a lesson." Based on how Mirabeau was acting, his refusal to explain why peace makes sense, treating the other Assassins like fools (which they are, I must admit, but then Mirabeau should fire them), except Arno the novice who breaks rules and hooks up with Templar girls.

Pierre Bellec has understandable reasons for acting the way he did. That's why he's so convincing. He's genuinely flawed and desperate guy who acted because he really thought there wasn't any other way. Bellec (along with Elise) is the only cool character in UNITY. He would have made a better hero than Arno, he would have also made a better villain than Germain.

We are supposed to see him as wrong because developers and fans have made a fetish of this concept of "Templar-peace" and "Gray Templars" for which only little evidence is there in the historical part and absolutely nothing in the MD sections. The Assassins are the good guys. When the world is about to be consumed by the Solar Flare, the Assassins prioritze that over killing Templars and getting revenge. Abstergo still does the same d--k moves, delay them from doing important work and then harvests Desmond's body, you know that kid who unselfishly gave his life to save 99% of humanity (incuding the Templars) to make a lame-o Pirate game. You can't make peace with the Templars if they are consistently shown to be corrupt murderous two-faced a--holes. The only Templars who escape this is Elise but she's Templar-in-name.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 11:41 AM
We are supposed to see him as wrong because developers and fans have made a fetish of this concept of "Templar-peace" and "Gray Templars" for which only little evidence is there in the historical part and absolutely nothing in the MD sections. The Assassins are the good guys. When the world is about to be consumed by the Solar Flare, the Assassins prioritze that over killing Templars and getting revenge. Abstergo still does the same d--k moves, delay them from doing important work and then harvests Desmond's body, you know that kid who unselfishly gave his life to save 99% of humanity (incuding the Templars) to make a lame-o Pirate game. You can't make peace with the Templars if they are consistently shown to be corrupt murderous two-faced a--holes. The only Templars who escape this is Elise but she's Templar-in-name.

Eh, the Assassins and Templars have existed for the entirety of human history. The idea that being an Assassin automatically makes you good and being a Templar automatically makes you bad is kind of reaching, as is the idea they've been identical organizations their entire organizational shelf-life. Some Assassins are going to be evil, some Templars are going to be good, and most are going to be in-between. Even in the original Assassin's Creed, it's a bit grayer than people remember as the Templars are trying to end the Crusades and bring peace to the region. One of the Assassins is trying to cure all the insane and another is Maria Thorpe. Haytham Kenway is kind of a ruthless ****** but I get the general impression he's not actively evil and has a lot of ideas way-way more progressive than his time like being anti-slavery and anti-Native persecution. Which, in the grand scheme of things cancels out his involvement in the Boston Massacre.

Even in the case of Abstergo, they were trying to save the planet too and they backed away from the idea they were trying to do mind-control sattelites. You can't get around the fact that apparently World War 2 was a big con-game but Juhani Otso Berg seems to be a fairly honorable opponent, just ruthless.

Do I think the Templars are MOSTLY bad?

Oh hell yes.

I generally think that ANYONE who wants to treat humanity as easily-manipulated cattle to be led around should be stopped by a hidden blade. I just like it when there's ambiguity. The thing is, when there's ambiguity, I wish the characters would react to it.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 12:21 PM
Eh, the Assassins and Templars have existed for the entirety of human history. The idea that being an Assassin automatically makes you good and being a Templar automatically makes you bad is kind of reaching, as is the idea they've been identical organizations their entire organizational shelf-life. Some Assassins are going to be evil, some Templars are going to be good, and most are going to be in-between. Even in the original Assassin's Creed, it's a bit grayer than people remember as the Templars are trying to end the Crusades and bring peace to the region.

I agree with you that the Assassin-Templar conflict as a concept is kind of silly. But that's been the problem for the beginning. AC1 is still the grayest game because Altair is not an immediately likable protagonist with sympathetic backstory, he's the least likable Assassin in the game and the targets are genuinely interesting and ask tough questions to the hero. But any pretense that Assassins and Templars are simply two sides you can agree to disagree with goes out the window because the modern day Templars are all neanderthal psychopaths. If they had reconfigured the present day and made it more ambiguous and mysterious, than what you say could be feasible.

The main thing you have to ask is "What is the function of the Templars?" the series is about the Assassins. It's about the Creed, about the idea that there are certain people so bad that killing them can actually bring public good. Those are fairly interesting and disturbing ideas to tackle. Ideally the game should be about Assassins attacking targets for their actions rather than targeting them for their ideologies. I actually said this a while back but the point is if people want Good Templars then the entire series has to be rebooted from the ground up and the conflict between Assassins and Templars has to be reinterpreted from the ground up. They have to do massive retcon work, such as saying that Abstergo aren't actually Templars and that the original Templars were different from them, only then can sympathetic Templars make any sense. The games have always worked best when its about the Assassin's psychology, about how much is too far, how much before they become as bad as what they oppose and the like.

Contriving Templars into grayness never works well since it doesn't jive with what we are told in the lore until now.


I just like it when there's ambiguity. The thing is, when there's ambiguity, I wish the characters would react to it.

I like ambiguity too, but it has to be real ambiguity and not of the bad comic-book type. UNITY and the Revolution was the best chance for that kind of reinterpretation and they blew it all up.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 01:22 PM
I actually said this a while back but the point is if people want Good Templars then the entire series has to be rebooted from the ground up and the conflict between Assassins and Templars has to be reinterpreted from the ground up.

Eh, I like the "Assasins always go for freedom while Templars always go for control" thing.

The thing is they should emphasize the Assassins are tearers-down while Templars are builders up.

You can do a lot with that.


I like ambiguity too, but it has to be real ambiguity and not of the bad comic-book type. UNITY and the Revolution was the best chance for that kind of reinterpretation and they blew it all up.

Eh, what's done is done and I'm actually kind of fond of Rogue's new Abstergo Templars. Juhani Otso Berg isn't that bad of a guy. He's evil but in a quiet understated way and not the "cackling madman" sort of way Vidic was.

He also has many admirable qualities.

A much better master Templar, in my opinion.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 02:13 PM
Eh, I like the "Assasins always go for freedom while Templars always go for control" thing.

The thing is they should emphasize the Assassins are tearers-down while Templars are builders up.

You can do a lot with that.

Eh, what's done is done and I'm actually kind of fond of Rogue's new Abstergo Templars. Juhani Otso Berg isn't that bad of a guy. He's evil but in a quiet understated way and not the "cackling madman" sort of way Vidic was.

He also has many admirable qualities.

A much better master Templar, in my opinion.

Vidic is a fairly low barrier to pass in my view. But you know, ROGUE is a good example of failed opportunity in that it doesn't really explore the Templars very well.

Like Abstergo as this all powerful corporation is a popular conspiracy trope one which doesn't work entirely in reality because corporations exists to make money, to create products that sustain their brand and maintain its value. What are Abstergo's mainline products? Throwaway lines imply that Abstergo is involved in a bunch of things, even medical products and so on. What I don't get is where does the money for their investment in something like the Animus and the Animii Avatar comes from? Those must be astronomically expensive, and their idea of monetizing it makes zero economic sense. making entertainment products. They would make way more money if they sold that to universities, governments, researchers and archeologists. If Abstergo wants to conceal and keep these products from the public, why use it to spin entertainment or the Helix? I mean Microsoft for instance doesn't depend on Xbox sales or Windows Phone sales. Windows and MS Office is their bread and butter that allows them stuff like Xbox (a purely loss-making venture in terms of physical console sales, its XBLA that brings home profits). I mean that Laetitia England woman tells Melanie Lemay that their Entertainment products pay the bills for Abstergo's medical work but their medical work could be way more profitable than entertainment products anyday.

lt just goes to show that the Templars can't really be taken all that seriously. They are meant to embody this shadowy conspiracy entity which collapses if you consider them rationally. If they wanted to make Templars sympathetic, there has to be someone among Templars who questions the practicalities of witholding and controling this knowledge. Like withholding treatment for a dangerous condition like for Juhani's daughter? Why would Templars not release this knowledge, their only reason for doing so is to make sure they can control their past records because the Animus generally makes them look bad and practically all the cool historical figures are either Assassins or Assassin allies. Stuff like them bullying Nicolaus Copernicus makes them look like jerks. So maybe they are altering history and presenting it to the public, even if their alterations are pretty shoddy and bad. There's that nice line in UNITY's Rift puzzles where it turns out that DEVILS IN THE CARIBBEAN was a huge flop and critical failure. The only way Templars can make sense is if you take a deconstructive look at being a conspiracy overlord. Like what kind of person you have to be to track data and the like. Can you be dispassionate and cold and so on? Most of the Templars are fairly average people, only given special knowledge and secret technology but otherwise these secret rulers of the world are fairly banal types.

You know at this point we are moving away from the original topic, of if Pierre Bellec is right or not. I presented an argument for the defense, can you continue prosecutor. I mean what would be the logical conclusion of Pierre Bellec as a character according to you?

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 04:58 PM
Vidic is a fairly low barrier to pass in my view. But you know, ROGUE is a good example of failed opportunity in that it doesn't really explore the Templars very well.

Like Abstergo as this all powerful corporation is a popular conspiracy trope one which doesn't work entirely in reality because corporations exists to make money, to create products that sustain their brand and maintain its value. What are Abstergo's mainline products? Throwaway lines imply that Abstergo is involved in a bunch of things, even medical products and so on. What I don't get is where does the money for their investment in something like the Animus and the Animii Avatar comes from? Those must be astronomically expensive, and their idea of monetizing it makes zero economic sense. making entertainment products. They would make way more money if they sold that to universities, governments, researchers and archeologists. If Abstergo wants to conceal and keep these products from the public, why use it to spin entertainment or the Helix? I mean Microsoft for instance doesn't depend on Xbox sales or Windows Phone sales. Windows and MS Office is their bread and butter that allows them stuff like Xbox (a purely loss-making venture in terms of physical console sales, its XBLA that brings home profits). I mean that Laetitia England woman tells Melanie Lemay that their Entertainment products pay the bills for Abstergo's medical work but their medical work could be way more profitable than entertainment products anyday.

lt just goes to show that the Templars can't really be taken all that seriously. They are meant to embody this shadowy conspiracy entity which collapses if you consider them rationally. If they wanted to make Templars sympathetic, there has to be someone among Templars who questions the practicalities of witholding and controling this knowledge. Like withholding treatment for a dangerous condition like for Juhani's daughter? Why would Templars not release this knowledge, their only reason for doing so is to make sure they can control their past records because the Animus generally makes them look bad and practically all the cool historical figures are either Assassins or Assassin allies. Stuff like them bullying Nicolaus Copernicus makes them look like jerks. So maybe they are altering history and presenting it to the public, even if their alterations are pretty shoddy and bad. There's that nice line in UNITY's Rift puzzles where it turns out that DEVILS IN THE CARIBBEAN was a huge flop and critical failure. The only way Templars can make sense is if you take a deconstructive look at being a conspiracy overlord. Like what kind of person you have to be to track data and the like. Can you be dispassionate and cold and so on? Most of the Templars are fairly average people, only given special knowledge and secret technology but otherwise these secret rulers of the world are fairly banal types.

I'm a fan of conspiracy theories in real-life, which means that I have to deal with a lot of people who passionately believe in very stupid things and have to sort through a lot of racism. But, like the X-Files, I get a lot of enjoyment out of the Assassins Creed game because of that respect. In the case of Abstergo, though, it's not really as silly as you're making it out to be. Yes, corporations are the "go to" villain but the Justice League cartoon show made a fun little comment by Lex Luthor. "Do you know how much power I'd have to give up [as a corporate CEO] to be President?"

President Truman warned against a Military Industrial Complex and while that was not an actual specific corporation like Abstergo, the whole idea behind it was that state policy could be dictated by whoever owned and paid for the politicians of the United States. Accusations about how the Tea Party and current Republican policy were created by the Koch brothers are hyberbolic but not entirely 100% wrong. Corporations can and do reach not only the heights of political power but also the common man on the street in a pervasive way which affects everyone.

The man who controls CNN or Fox News controls more access to information than any other person in history.

In the case of Abstergo, their massive number of corporate holdings are there to fund the Templars agenda and the Templar's political influence allows them to do favors for Abstergo the coporation in return. It's the definition of "classical" fascism where dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and so on would do big favors for corporations in exchange for their support. Abstergo Entertainment is a silly dig at Ubisoft but the thing about the Animus is that Abstergo can use it not just to make money selling video games (which helps defray the cost of stuff like its development to find the Pieces of Eden and other bits of their agenda) but also control public opinion.

Yes, Abstergo is incompetent in many respects but, well, they're the bad guys and many RL dictators were horribly incompetent. Plus it's only a game man.


You know at this point we are moving away from the original topic, of if Pierre Bellec is right or not. I presented an argument for the defense, can you continue prosecutor. I mean what would be the logical conclusion of Pierre Bellec as a character according to you?

My opinion on Pierre Bellic is that he's an attempt to illustrate the Assassins aren't necessarily all that intelligent. He's decided that the truce with the Templars is a horrible idea and that the best thing to do is kill them all. The thing is, NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT to the situation going on in France at this time. Arno manages to wipe out Germaine and his faction but, by that time, things have already seriously gone to hell.

Accoridng to Assassin's Creed history, if the Templar and Assassin truce had been allowed to continue without Arno screwing things up then the two sides could have stopped Germain's plot. It wouldn't have helped the situation with King Louis going to Austria but they could have avoided the Reign of Terror as it only exists in this universe because of Templar's stoking the flames.

I think Pierre was illustrative quite a few of the problems the Assassins deal with are complex and multi-faceted things. Mirabeau wasn't the best Assassin Mentor in the world but he was a complex and capable politician in real-life--and in the AC universe seems to have been far more capable as well as moral. Mirabeau probably did a lot more good in those roles than he ever did as an Assassin.

It's funny, too, because Pierre considers himself the heir of Altair and Ezio but both individuals were heavily involved in statesmanship and diplomacy. Likewise, Connor tried to make peace with the Templars too.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 05:51 PM
"Do you know how much power I'd have to give up [as a corporate CEO] to be President?"

Well the President of the USA probably has more fetters and checks and balances than a CEO, that's true enough, but at the end of the day, the President of the USA by selecting the Supreme Courts, by calling for tax cuts and breaks, can make things problematic as well. He decides the economies, opens new markets for trade and creates stuff like the Iran N-Deal or a Cuban Thaw. No CEO or NGO can do that if they wanted to. Corporations do play and influence politics that is undoubtedly true but its both more and less than the way you think it will be. Corporations have a far bigger impact in the developing world, on nations like India, then they do in the USA or even the UK. Something like the News of the World collapsing over wiretaps would not happen just anywhere you know.

My feelings about conspiracy theory is that of Thomas Pynchon in Gravity's Rainbow, "If there is something comforting, religious if you will, about paranoia. There is also anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to anything, a situation most people can't bear for very long." The AC games at their best suggested that it doesn't take conspiracy theory all that seriously and for them its merely a way to thread the game and story and jump eras back and forth. In games like AC2 and AC3 it shows how hard it was to secretly run history behind the scenes. The Borgia keep coming up with plots but all of them fail miserably. AC3 had the great Haytham decide that Charles Lee would be Dictator of America. In the present day MD you also have to wonder if Abstergo are as powerful as they are made out to be. They seem so in comparison to the Assassins, but the only word for that is Subject 16's insane ravings and we don't know how much we can take that seriously. Abstergo are generally two-faced liars as well, so I actually think it would be a nice twist in MD if you show Abstergo to not be very powerful after all. Because their companies run on different economic laws than most real ones do. Ultimately, a good way to make Templars sympathetic is to show that they are starting to question if their new world order is possible, that when the order comes, if they will be allowed or would want to live in that utopia and so on. In some cases, I don't think Templars want a new world order, just the same world but with them in charge forever.


I think Pierre was illustrative quite a few of the problems the Assassins deal with are complex and multi-faceted things. Mirabeau wasn't the best Assassin Mentor in the world but he was a complex and capable politician in real-life--and in the AC universe seems to have been far more capable as well as moral. Mirabeau probably did a lot more good in those roles than he ever did as an Assassin.

It's funny, too, because Pierre considers himself the heir of Altair and Ezio but both individuals were heavily involved in statesmanship and diplomacy. Likewise, Connor tried to make peace with the Templars too.

My feeling about Pierre is that he did something bad and terrible but he did it for very understandable, if desperate motivations. You can also sense that Pierre has some ambition in him. There's the fact that, as the database says, he was in America during the Purge of Achilles' brotherhood and that line about "I've seen Templars burn villages to find some Assassins" (which we should have seen in ROGUE in my view) says a lot. He has that wanting to be a hero thing. But I sympathize with that more than I do Arno, because I find Arno too perfect to be relatable. I feel ideally Pierre Bellec should have been the hero because he would have been an amazingly dark anti-hero for the franchise, and he kind of fits the mentality and landscape of the Revolution well. Also, unlike Arno who's rich and pampered, there's a sense that Pierre is working class that he was poor so there's the natural class sympathies you feel towards him. Failing that, Pierre should have been the main villain instead of Germain, he's a better personality and more tragic figure. It's the guy who wanted to be Altair but somewhere along the way he became Abbas Sofian instead.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 05:58 PM
My feelings about conspiracy theory is that of Thomas Pynchon in Gravity's Rainbow, "If there is something comforting, religious if you will, about paranoia. There is also anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to anything, a situation most people can't bear for very long."

Lindsay Stirling (The Nostalgia Chick) posted a lengthy article about how conspiracy theories were an outdated concept and how paranoia was silly, if not racist, which is something which should be addressed with the X-Files. I pointed out in a rebuttal that since the X-files we've had the government engage in secret kidnappings, secret prisons, mass-surveillance of everyone, and build an army of killer robots.

Paranoia is quite comforting but believing the world is out to get you doesn't mean it's not.

:-)

Either way, I assume Abstergo is just where the majority of Templar assets lay, not all of them.


I feel ideally Pierre Bellec should have been the hero because he would have been an amazingly dark anti-hero for the franchise, and he kind of fits the mentality and landscape of the Revolution well.

Eh, I wouldn't have played it if it was Pierre because I want LESS murderous and dark assassins than the reverse. I like moral complexity and antiheroes as a general rule but I also like seeing evil punished. Seeing it win is a paradox because I want to see enemies capable and strong but I loathe to see the bad guys triumph since I see enough of that in real-life. I also think that people like Pierre are the biggest problem in real-life because they think they're smarter than they really are.

"My complex problem shall be solved by STABBING!"

Conversely, I didn't like Arno all that much because he didn't have strong convictions in either helping people OR hurting them. He's just sort of there.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 06:14 PM
Lindsay Stirling (The Nostalgia Chick) posted a lengthy article about how conspiracy theories were an outdated concept and how paranoia was silly, if not racist, which is something which should be addressed with the X-Files. I pointed out in a rebuttal that since the X-files we've had the government engage in secret kidnappings, secret prisons, mass-surveillance of everyone, and build an army of killer robots.

Paranoia is quite comforting but believing the world is out to get you doesn't mean it's not.

Well as Pynchon also said, "Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean I'm wrong." You know its funny, UNITY is a game that actually comes out of the very first conspiracy theory, the grand-daddy of them all.

In history and real-life, after the French Revolution, there was this book, History of the Jacobins, by this right-wing Catholic priest called Abbe Barruel and in that he said that the Revolution was plotted by the Illuminati and the Freemasons using their front-organization called the Jacobins. He said that the French people were contented to be humble, pious Catholic peasants under Good King Louis but the evil Jacobins confounded matters by talking about democracy, giving people rights they neither wanted nor needed and that the Revolution was cooked up by Enlightened thinkers in closed rooms and forced on a population against their will. The logic of this conspiracy is to justify Absolute Monarchy and the rule of the Church and oppose all reforms as the work of an intellectual elite minority. Royalists and other conservatives seized on it and added to it. Edmund Burke said that the Revolution was the work of the "swinish multitude" and "Jewish brokers" and this started the anti-semitic conspiracy theory used by the Nazis. For a long time in Europe, conspiracy theories was right-wing fantasies intended to justify police states, brutal repression and denying any demands of democratic reform as "unrepresentative" of anyone but fringe groups. It also justified censorship and harassment of intellectuals. And all of that came from Abbe Barruel's insane lunatic book which UNITY uncritically regurgitated for their game.

In America, in the 60s, conspiracy theories usually the province of right-wingers became depoliticized to the extent that its adopted by some left-wing groups. But its always a noxious and poisonous concept from the very beginning and I think lacking a smart brain like Thomas Pynchon or a right critical idea it can become nasty and dangerous.


Eh, I wouldn't have played it if it was Pierre because I want LESS murderous and dark assassins than the reverse. I like moral complexity and antiheroes as a general rule but I also like seeing evil punished. Seeing it win is a paradox because I want to see enemies capable and strong but I loathe to see the bad guys triumph since I see enough of that in real-life. I also think that people like Pierre are the biggest problem in real-life because they think they're smarter than they really are.

"My complex problem shall be solved by STABBING!"

Conversely, I didn't like Arno all that much because he didn't have strong convictions in either helping people OR hurting them. He's just sort of there.

Well between Arno and Pierre, I'd choose Pierre. Between Grief and Nothing I will choose grief.

Civona
05-14-2015, 06:16 PM
The point of the Assassins is that they realize that there are no limits to what you can do to try to solve problems, but they willingly place what they consider the minimum acceptable limits upon themselves. Don't kill innocents, don't compromise the brotherhood. Mirabeau was not strictly innocent, but Bellec killed him simply because he was bored of politics, and he compromised the brotherhood. A larger external threat was brewing and he made them vulnerable.

Those limits are the foundation of their philosophy because they do not think they have a right to take unjustified pre-emptive action, and they value respecting your comrades enough to put them before your own ambition. Bellec stopped respecting Mirabeau, decided that he had a right to more power than him, decided that he would someday be a threat, and so he killed him. He corrupted the philosophy out of pride and weariness and cynicism.

I think he should have left the Assassins, not tried to harness their power into solely his own will. There is always struggle in debate, but there is strength in brotherhood.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 06:22 PM
While you're completely correct about that bit of historical revisionism, you also miss the hilarious context which really should have required Robespierre to be an Assassin rather than a Templar. Specifically, that Robespierre was a man who believed very strongly in conspiracy theories and the belief the revolution was under attack by individuals who wanted to reverse the Revolution's gains in horrific ways.

That's the thing, though, Robespierre was actually CORRECT.

King Louis DID have a secret plot with the Austrian Hapsburg Dynasty in order to reverse the Revolution and its reforms by invading the country in order to re-install monarchical power. The world is full of secret plots and counterplots. It's just they tend to be not hyper-competent super-intelligent conspirators but corrupt greedy bureaucrats and selfish people in power.

I say this as a person who thinks conspiracy theories are usually the enemy of serious journalism and history (I say that as a professional academic).

It is FUN, though.


In America, in the 60s, conspiracy theories usually the province of right-wingers became depoliticized to the extent that its adopted by some left-wing groups. But its always a noxious and poisonous concept from the very beginning and I think lacking a smart brain like Thomas Pynchon or a right critical idea it can become nasty and dangerous.

Interestingly, enough, I am the author of an Urban Fantasy novel called, "Esoterrorism" which is coming out in July. It is a novel following an agent of a global conspiracy called the House as he deals with the moral conundrums of being a servant for an organization which violates so many moral ethics--but which he thinks does more good than evil.

http://www.ragnarokpub.com/#!esoterrorism/c14nv

So you can guess my opinion on conspiracy theory.