Reasons for the Conspiracy Mindset
Steve
psychologist's shoes let me pose a question for the Lone Nut advocates
out there. I am endlessly amazed at how the conspiracy- believing
mind works, and when I lecture my classes I spend one full class
period (96 minutes) each semester discussing WHY some people are pre-
disposed to believe in conspiracies. But I would love to add some new
reasons to my lecture. All of us have been plagued with consiracy-
thinkers for years but what really makes them tick? ( I already know
what makes them tock) In your own experiences why do YOU believe
conspiracy believers tend to love being on the conspiracy side of the
fence so much. And please keep in mind, conspiracy belief, much like
a disease, spreads to MANY topics. A great example is Crazy Old Jack
White. Crazy Jack believes in multiple conspiracies surrounding the
Kennedy assassination, each one more wacky than the one before, but it
doesn't stop there, he also believe that O.J. Simpson was totally
innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, he also believes
that the moon landings were all faked, and that the 9/11 attacks were
all a government plot. I'm sure he believes in more but I don't
really have the time or interest to follow Crazy Jack around too
much.
Why is this so. I am ONLY looking for reasons that are legitimate.
We already know they are crazy, but what makes belief in conspiracies
so alluring and so comforting to some people?
lazu...@webtv.net
tell me why I believe in conspiracy..oh brother!...many conspiracists
myself included would much rather believe Oswald acted alone...we would
think much better of our country if we did, but if you have a
conscience...you gotta be open to conspiracy..it's that simple..
muc...@gmail.com
Suggestion #1: misguided patriotism.
Gil Jesus
Did the US Government CONSPIRE with Organized Crime to kill Fidel
Castro ?
Was the assassination of Julius Caesar a CONSPIRACY or the result of a
lone killer ?
justm...@gmail.com
Sit down dickhead, can't you ever answer a question instead of coming
back with questions and ignoring the original one? Tell us Mr.
Deciever of the Church....why do people like you believe in
conspiracies??? Steve did NOT say conspiracies don't exist, he asked
why you idiots believe in them (referring to the far fetched garbage
CT mentality mouths off about).
Well Steve, there are probably many answers to that question. If you
want to base it on the idiots that post here...the biggest reason
would be they are looking for acceptance and trying to make a name for
themselves. People like Healy, who thinks because he had an article
published that he is some big knowledgeable researcher. Jesus, who has
his youtube channel and spends his life checking to see how many other
nuts have viewed his videos and then pats himself on the back by
starting threads on this newgroup about it. Rossley who pimps his
website with every post he makes and tries to run a JFK room on
Paltalk (with all 3 or 4 people that go in it). The above 3 are
looking for their day in the limelight. Healy and Jesus (especially
Healy) are jealous of anyone that has done better then they have.
Their hatred and fear of Bugliosi and the HBO mini series is so
evident.
Another reason, CT's have nothing better to do with their time. They
are a paranoid group who trust no one, and think there is something or
someone hiding and watching every move they make on a daily basis.
They question everything they are told, that they read, or hear.
Everything has an ulterior motive.
Things always happen for a reason, but in a CT's crazy mind, that
reason is suspicious.
They lack self confidence, which is why they all cling together and
believe each other no matter how far fetched their theories or
comments are. They are unable to travel outside of their little CT
haven and mingle with everyday people. They try and push Conspiracy
stories at anyone that will listen to them.
They have this mental image that they are superior to the everyday
citizen. That they know something no one else does and their going to
prove it to the world. All it takes is one other idiot to listen and
their theory then it turns into a full blown fact. They are NEVER
wrong, even when proven to be. They will not accept rebuttal and run
when the heat gets turned up.
They have no common sense or logic. They have no sense of humor
(except among themselves). They cannot see the difference between
sarcasm, humor, or parody. They think everyone is out to get them
(again the paranoid state.) They believe nothing, and want proof of
everything yet do not feel they need to show proof for any of their
ridiculous statements. They are right, the world is wrong no matter
what the subject is.
For many CT's this is their life, trying to find "THEIR" truth.
Unfortunately, they wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and
slapped them in the face, simply because if they face the truth and
accept it, what would they have left??? Absolutely NOTHING.
Steve
And the award for missing the point entirely goes
to.....**drumroll**.....GIL JESUS!!!
Steve
wrote:
Steve,
Excellent comments. I agree 100% with your insight. You hit the nail
on the head.
Steve
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dccde287-da46-4ff1...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
justme is America's "Enemy Within"
Justme never addresses evidence/testimony and, attacks those who DO ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
ALL in her own words.
tomnln
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a29c1f6-78bb-4a18...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
THIS is "misguided patriotism">>> http://whokilledjfk.net/enemy_within.htm
"misguided patriotism" is YOU supporting Felons.
David Von Pein
>>> "We already know they [i.e., conspiracy-loving morons like those at acj] are crazy." <<<
That pretty much nails it down right there. (In a "Nut"shell.) :)
Another thing:
Many of the JFK conspiracy-giddy clowns just love to be DIFFERENT in
one way or another. These individuals love to feel that it is THEY
(alone) who have finally "solved" the greatest murder "mystery" of our
time. Thomas "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purvis being an excellent
example of this type of mindset.
And Donald Willis is another pretty good example of what I'm talking
about. Don is a conspiracy kook who wanders into these forums from
time to time, spouting one nutty theory or another.
Don likes to think that he has discovered the identity of WHO it was
who actually killed John F. Kennedy (or at least ONE of the gunmen who
fired shots at the President). Don told us in 2007 that it was
teenaged TSBD employee Danny Arce who was firing a rifle from the
Depository on 11/22/63 (instead of Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally). No
kidding--Danny Arce!
"Arce as the shooter...west side." -- Don Willis; Feb. 2007
Steve, you ought to read the 2007 thread linked below regarding Mr.
Willis' craziness. It's a howl:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/28516c307a2d8e88
So, it seems as though Donald has a desire to be "different" (very,
VERY different, in fact, given his nutsville theory about Arce), which
is probably a prime motive for wanting to believe in a conspiracy and
for disbelieving the perfectly-logical (and perfectly-correct) Warren
Commission version of events.
Footnote -- Now, maybe Donald Willis, since early 2007, has changed
his mind about Arce shooting JFK. It wouldn't surprise me if he had.
Some of these conspiracy goofs change theories as often as the late
Johnny Carson changed wives. So, it's quite possible that Mr. Willis'
current unprovable (and very "different") theory is this one:
SHOE SALESMAN JOHNNY BREWER KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY WITH A SHOE HORN,
AND THEN BREWER TRIED TO PIN THE WHOLE THING ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY
FINGERING SWEET LEE IN THE TEXAS THEATER SHORTLY AFTER THE
ASSASSINATION.
(More details concerning this breaking story tonight at 11:00 PM on
'The Kook Channel'!)
YoHarvey
> >>> "We already know they [i.e., conspiracy-loving morons like those at acj] are crazy." <<<
>
> That pretty much nails it down right there. (In a "Nut"shell.) :)
>
> Another thing:
>
> Many of the JFK conspiracy-giddy clowns just love to be DIFFERENT in
> one way or another. These individuals love to feel that it is THEY
> (alone) who have finally "solved" the greatest murder "mystery" of our
> time. Thomas "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purvis being an excellent
> example of this type of mindset.
>
> And Donald Willis is another pretty good example of what I'm talking
> about. Don is a conspiracy kook who wanders into these forums from
> time to time, spouting one nutty theory or another.
>
> Don likes to think that he has discovered the identity of WHO it was
> who actually killed John F. Kennedy (or at least ONE of the gunmen who
> fired shots at the President). Don told us in 2007 that it was
> teenaged TSBD employee Danny Arce who was firing a rifle from the
> Depository on 11/22/63 (instead of Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally). No
> kidding--Danny Arce!
>
> "Arce as the shooter...west side." -- Don Willis; Feb. 2007
>
> Steve, you ought to read the 2007 thread linked below regarding Mr.
> Willis' craziness. It's a howl:
>
>
> So, it seems as though Donald has a desire to be "different" (very,
> VERY different, in fact, given his nutsville theory about Arce), which
> is probably a prime motive for wanting to believe in a conspiracy and
> for disbelieving the perfectly-logical (and perfectly-correct) Warren
> Commission version of events.
>
> Footnote -- Now, maybe Donald Willis, since early 2007, has changed
> his mind about Arce shooting JFK. It wouldn't surprise me if he had.
> Some of these conspiracy goofs change theories as often as the late
> Johnny Carson changed wives. So, it's quite possible that Mr. Willis'
> current unprovable (and very "different") theory is this one:
>
> SHOE SALESMAN JOHNNY BREWER KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY WITH A SHOE HORN,
> AND THEN BREWER TRIED TO PIN THE WHOLE THING ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY
> FINGERING SWEET LEE IN THE TEXAS THEATER SHORTLY AFTER THE
> ASSASSINATION.
>
> (More details concerning this breaking story tonight at 11:00 PM on
> 'The Kook Channel'!)
Conspiracy Theories
THE PURPOSE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES…
We all know that conspiracies exist. There is ample indisputable
historical proof in such matters as: Watergate, Enron, tobacco and
drug companies suppressing adverse data about health-related
consequences of their products, the Mafia, military-scandals such as
Tailhook, Abu Ghraib, Haditha; military academy cheating, criminal
prosecutions of politicians and law enforcement or correctional
officers who lied under oath to protect themselves or others, the KKK,
the CPUSA, etc.
Political conspiracy theories arise most often when the "official
version” of events seems inadequate, flawed, or incomplete.
But the entire purpose of most political conspiracy theories is NOT to
carefully present evidence and use reason and logic to arrive at
sound, verifiable conclusions. Instead, most political conspiracy
theories are primarily an intellectual device by which individuals and
organizations identify and demonize their perceived enemies whom they
propose to vanquish.
There is a distinction between perceiving an "opponent" (i.e. an
honorable, decent, and legitimate competitor--albeit wrong-headed from
one's own perspective) versus an "enemy" (i.e. someone characterized
in terms calculated to evoke fear, contempt, suspicion, distrust, and
revulsion.)
Most conspiracy theories focus upon enemies, not on opponents. One's
receptivity to logic and evidence diminishes drastically when one
confronts "enemies" as opposed to "opponents".
The substantive content of a political conspiracy theory is often
completely irrelevant to the underlying purpose of the theory and, in
any event, there is no possible way to refute or disprove most such
theories to the satisfaction of its authors or adherents because most
political conspiracy theories are constructed to be self-sealing so
that contradictory data can be instantly dismissed, ignored, or de-
valued. The reason is because the theory functions as a problem-
solving device but the actual “problem” has virtually nothing to do
with the details regarding people and events which are part of the
conspiratorial narrative.
The actual “problem” which political conspiracy theories seek to
address is explaining one’s sense of impotence---i.e. providing
plausible reasons for why one’s values, ideas, policy preferences, and
political candidates seem to be repeatedly ignored, disparaged,
violated, or defeated – particularly over long periods of time.
Consequently, the conspiracy theory expresses the rage felt when a
person perceives himself or his group as persistent “losers” in all
matters of importance.
Therefore, the conspiracy theory functions as a “rolodex” of people
and organizations who should not be permitted to have a place at the
table, because “they” despoil our country, “they” defile its true
values, and “they” plan to rob us of our heritage and “they” seek to
make impotence a permanent feature of our lives.
That’s the reason why a political conspiracy theory can never be
refuted---because it does not rely upon the individual facts,
assertions, or conclusions which make up the literal text of the
theory. Instead, it is a primal scream against perceived villains
whom are thought to have ruined our society or whom are working toward
destroying our individual sovereignty.
The BEST conspiracy theories combine kernels of indisputable fact with
less compelling data (and often outright falsehoods). The kernels of
fact make political conspiracy theories alluring.
However, there are NO TESTS which authors and believers of a theory
will allow IF such tests have the genuine capacity to disprove their
theory.
Conspiracy theories are usually authored by persistent losers in
public policy debates to account for why those persons are frustrated
and seemingly impotent to affect public policy decisions and elections
over long periods of time.
ALL societies (except those in the midst of civil war) have a
prevailing point of view. Somebody always winds up "losing" a policy
debate or an election and, consequently, they are not invited to the
table to make important decisions. Conspiracy proponents often
declare that their "battle" was “lost decades ago" or they declare an
imminent expiration date for the existence of our country if our
“brainwashed” fellow countrymen do not “wake up” and recognize the
danger confronting us.
Anger and frustration is a normal human response to feelings of
endless impotence. Conspiracy theories "solve" the underlying problem
by explaining WHY one perceives oneself as powerless, disrespected,
unappreciated, and ignored. It’s really very simple---malevolent
powerful beings, working in secret, are responsible.
In my experience, I've found most conspiracy advocates to be
profoundly anti-intellectual---even though they may simultaneously
produce reams of what they consider "proof" and "evidence" for their
point of view.
Conspiracy authors almost never concede even the hypothetical
possibility that their paradigm might be flawed in some fundamental
respect. Furthermore, conspiracy authors/researchers don't simply
allege that a critic or skeptic is mistaken in their viewpoint.
Instead, they almost always assert that critics or skeptics facilitate
the success of evil cabals who consciously are working to destroy our
way of life.
In short, conspiracy believers proclaim that their interpretation is
not just intellectually superior to other interpretations, but theirs
is the ONLY interpretation possible and any disagreements are the
result of morally and intellectually defective beings---who are,
perhaps, even agents of the conspiracy!
Similarly, conspiracy believers usually declare that every issue or
controversy is susceptible to only one correct interpretation and,
furthermore, our public policy options are limited to only one correct
position---which, “coincidentally” always conforms to the conspiracy
believer’s personal political preferences.
Typically, conspiracy adherents will entertain questions and comments
about their theory only so long as their fundamental premises and
conclusions are not challenged. Rigorous critiques are instantly
perceived as hostile attacks by hopelessly naïve, ignorant, or
“brainwashed” individuals---or, perhaps, “smears” initiated by
“agents” of the conspiracy who are seeking to “divert” attention away
from themselves and thus "waste" time and resources in “pointless”
intellectual debates or “disinformation” campaigns.
Furthermore, conspiracy believers are pre-disposed to believing the
worst possible motives regarding their adversaries. Consequently,
conspiracy proponents often arrive at conclusions without asking their
perceived adversaries a single question.
Conspiracy advocates often assert that their fellow countrymen cannot
be relied upon to understand events and make correct decisions. Why
not? Because they believe that vast numbers of their countrymen have
been “brainwashed” and “cannot think for themselves”. In their scheme
of things, only conspiracy believers are able to recognize and escape
from the clever mind-tricks and ulterior motives of their adversaries.
There are two methods of discussing or analyzing political conspiracy
theories:
(1) Philosophical discussion (i.e mostly speculation)
(2) Evaluation of factual evidence
(1) PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION
Such discussions may be valuable, relevant, and fun ... but, in the
final analysis, they are primarily speculative in nature and do not
rise above the level of casual conversation.
In this approach, everyone's ideas are considered just as relevant or
valuable as anybody else’s. There is asserted to be a moral and
practical equivalence to virtually every assertion made and,
consequently, nothing in dispute can be resolved.
In this approach, each participant brings his/her familiarity and
understanding of many different information sources to bear upon the
discussion – without being prepared to substantiate anything.
Questions are asked, statements are made, tentative conclusions may be
presented, but nobody expects verifiable documentation or
substantiation of each and every point raised nor does anyone
seriously expect to resolve every disputed idea or assertion.
(2) FACT-BASED RESEARCH, STUDY, ANALYSIS
This approach is much more labor-intensive because careful research
and analysis is required. In this approach...
· specific assertions or statements are made
· the truth or falsity of each assertion or statement must be
determined
· any documentation provided must be reviewed and then
verified to establish that it is factually accurate, truthful, and
germane to the discussion
· truthful assertions and statements must then be evaluated,
weighed for importance, relevance, or emphasis
· factual data is combined to form arguments or theories
· those arguments and theories must then be evaluated to
assure they don't exceed whatever factual evidence has thus far been
discovered
· standard rules of logic and evidence must be applied – in
other words, one has to understand the qualitative difference between
primary and secondary sources of evidence and one must have a general
familiarity with the principles of sound logic, i.e. how to recognize
and avoid (or refute) fallacious arguments
· material presented as direct quotations must, in fact, be
quotations not paraphrases or subjective interpretations
· credible conclusions or assertions cannot be based upon
gossip, rumor, hearsay, anecdotes, half-truths, gross exaggerations,
personal prejudice, malice, or outright falsehoods
· in addition, there must be recognition that, sometimes,
available evidence may be incomplete, ambiguous, or incapable of being
verified. Normally there is recognition that honorable and
intelligent people may arrive at fundamentally different
interpretations of whatever data is under scrutiny
· one has to recognize the difference between innocent errors
versus intentional acts of omission and commission. The latter
category would include such matters as…
o deliberate misquotation or paraphrasing so as to change the
original author’s intended meaning
o biased selection of evidence in order to discredit someone
o suppression of pertinent data
o inability to provide high-quality evidence when making highly
pejorative accusations
The “problem” with the “fact-based” route of inquiry is that such
evidence may not be convenient or helpful to the conspiracy theory
under scrutiny.
Consequently, like all fiction-writers, the conspiracy author wants to
be free to fabricate his villains, put words into their mouth and
thoughts into their head, and then control the plot and ultimate
outcome of the story --- all without being held responsible or
accountable for any unkind or untrue statements and conclusions.
As previously mentioned, political conspiracy theories are problem-
solving devices. They exist solely to offer an hypothesis for why
persons and groups perceived as noxious enemies to the commonweal
have, nevertheless, been successful and predominant over long periods
of time in achieving power, influence, status, and wealth.
Such theories are often created by the "losers" in public policy
debates---particularly if the losers have rarely (or never) been
successful in influencing or determining public policy over long
periods of time.
The hypothesis of "losers" is as follows:
It is inconceivable that the same person(s) and group(s) could
repeatedly prevail in elections and policy debates and thus wield
power and influence over long periods of time (plus accumulate
purportedly undeserved wealth, status, awards, and honors) without the
reason being some underlying and ongoing corruption of political
processes.
From the "losers" perspective, the simple “law of averages” should
produce periodic sustained and decisive victories for their personal
political preferences (i.e. candidates and policies) and,
consequently, they (the perennial losers) should have a roughly equal
impact upon shaping the public debate and winning political contests.
The fundamental flaw in this argument is simply that there is no
applicable formula from history or logic that would help us establish
typical or average rates of "success" or "favorable results" with
respect to political contests, policy debates, elections, measurements
of power, influence, wealth, awards, and honors.
In other words, there is no pre-existing norm or baseline that can be
used for comparison purposes in order to determine when one prevailing
viewpoint has exceeded "the norm" -- because there is NO norm!
Just like, for example, there is no known formula or baseline for
sports team competition.
If the Boston Red Sox do not win a world series for 86 years (!) does
that mean "a conspiracy" must have been responsible, i.e. some secret
agreement by corrupt persons to prevent Boston from winning the world
series or from even reaching the final playoffs?
Why? Because "the law of averages" should have produced a world series
win long before 86 years had elapsed? Because "chance" could not
possibly account for such a long period of failure? Because random,
unintended, or unpredictable events or circumstances could not
possibly apply to such a long period of failure in competitive
contests?
To test a hypothesis, one must create an experiment. But what
experiment can serve as a conclusive test for a political conspiracy
theory and thus hypothetically permit its falsification?
One begins by asking a question:
"What will give me one result if my hypothesis is true but a different
result if my hypothesis is false?
Experiments must then be designed to find out whether or not
predictions made are correct.
For example, suppose the printer connected to your computer stops
working. You form a tentative hypothesis that there is something wrong
with the cable connecting the printer to the computer. If your
hypothesis is correct, then if you replace the cable with a working
cable, the printer should work again.
You perform an experiment by borrowing a friend's PC cable and hooking
it up in place of your own. Suppose your printer worked after you
installed the friend's PC cable.
Does that "prove" your hypothesis that your own cable was defective?
Not necessarily! Perhaps, your cable was fine but just loose. Or
perhaps there was some dust interfering with the cable connection and
simply removing the cable eliminated the underlying dust problem.
There could even be other explanations. So how does a researcher
determine, conclusively, the answer?
CONSPIRACY “SCHOLARSHIP” – part 1
Political conspiracy theories involve infinitely more complex
possibilities than PC cable problems. First, there are huge numbers of
both known (and unknown) interactions between and among scores or
hundreds or thousands of human beings. How does an honest researcher
recognize and appropriately analyze/weigh the numerous complexities
and variables of human behavior and motivations?
Conspiracy theorists rarely have personal contact with the persons or
organizations they perceive and write about as "conspirators".
Consequently, they are in the position of making final, definitive
judgments about character, integrity, patriotism and motives from long-
distance. But because they start from a “loser’s” perspective, they
are usually pre-disposed to believing the worst possible motives and
explanations!
Furthermore, conspiracy "scholarship" suffers from several major
anomalies that normally are considered markers for irrational,
illogical, or non-factual conclusions.
In the history of modern political conspiracy arguments, there rarely
has been peer review (for example: no journals created to facilitate
debate by differing schools of thought), no acknowledgement of
substantive error by any author, and no attempt to refute alternative
conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theorists ask us to believe that they are uniquely
insightful even while, simultaneously, they seem unable or unwilling
to apply to their own writings the normal, customary scholarly methods
and practices which routinely apply to other fields of inquiry. One
wonders why this is the case?
There is something remarkably peculiar about many (perhaps most) books
which right-wing conspiracy believers produce.
1. First, there is almost always no independent research.
In almost no case, does the conspiracy author indicate any direct
contact with the persons and organizations he writes about. No
interviews. No correspondence. No emails. No phone conversations. No
questions posed. No archival research. Nothing.
For example: W. Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen (in their respective
books, The Naked Capitalist and None Dare Call It Conspiracy) relied
heavily upon Dr. Carroll Quigley's research as reported in his 1966
book entitled, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time.
Both Allen and Skousen quote extensively from or rely upon Quigley’s
book. Conspiracy adherents have used Allen and Skousen for decades as
“proof” for whatever theory they wish to circulate.
However, neither Skousen or Allen reviewed the primary source
documents upon which Quigley based his conclusions and which he cited
in his book.
Consequently, neither Skousen or Allen are in a position to
(a) confirm that references cited by Quigley are accurate and
truthful OR
(b) ascertain whether or not Quigley overlooked relevant material
which could lend itself to a different interpretation from what
Quigley presented OR
(c) decide whether or not Quigley placed too much emphasis on, or gave
too much credence to, data in documents which he saw
· Furthermore, neither Skousen or Allen ever contacted Quigley
to ask questions about his research, or to request copies of documents
relevant to their own writings, or to inquire into other aspects of
the subject matter they considered to be of critical importance.
· Neither Skousen or Allen did any seminal research of their
own into other archival material pertaining to their subject matter.
Instead, they both just make extensive use of secondary sources, i.e.
they both just repeat assertions made by other persons.
Bill McIlhany (a Birch Society author) has correctly pointed out the
limitations of using secondary sources in his opus, Evidence of a
Master Conspiracy:
“The trouble with secondary sources is that they really are no
stronger than the primary or contemporary documentation they contain.
If you're reading a book written by someone today about the French
Revolution of over two hundred years ago, and it says that it was
caused by some particular historical force or movement, you have no
way of knowing whether that is true unless you can examine the
evidence put forth for the claim.
The fact that a secondary source makes a statement about something
only proves one thing: that that book or article made that statement.
If you want to be critical in your thinking (it's always good, as the
Bible says, to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good),
you certainly need to test anything which you encounter. One way of
doing that is to know whether or not the secondary source has any
documentation. When you get a secondary historical account what's the
first thing you do? You can look to see if it has any footnotes or
bibliography…Is the book quoting simply from people who already agree
with the thesis that the book is presenting or is it going back to
more primary material?”
2. Second, if you check a representative sample of books authored by
conspiracy proponents, there are two remarkable anomalies, as follows:
(a) IF there are any bibliographic footnotes, they often are
predominantly secondary sources instead of primary sources. In
addition, the secondary sources often merely express personal opinions
or interpretations.
Sometimes the footnotes turn out to be editorials, opinion columnists,
letters-to-the-editor, or gossip columns in newspapers. In many other
cases, the footnotes consist of material inserted into the
Congressional Record without the author ever checking the accuracy of
the original source! [See, for example, John Stormer’s classic, None
Dare Call it Treason.]
Consider the following specific example:
On page 69 of None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, he writes:
"According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949:
'Today, it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the
old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of
Bolshevism in Russia.' "
The clear implication is that Allen is quoting from a news report by a
reputable major city daily newspaper -- perhaps even an interview with
John Schiff about his grandfather.
However, in reality, the "quotation" used by Gary Allen actually
appears in that newspaper’s society gossip column by pseudonym "Cholly
Knickerbocker"!! This is the type and quality of documentation which
"historian" Gary Allen thinks is sufficiently credible. But how many
of his readers would ever bother to check his reference??
(b) Genuine scholars and researchers routinely include
"acknowledgements" and "notes" pages in their books. By contrast,
conspiracy advocates almost never include such pages. In fact, before
writing this article I quickly reviewed a couple dozen conspiracy
books in my collection. NONE have an acknowledgements page. There is a
reason for this! Why is that omission significant?
What is the purpose and significance of acknowledgements and/or notes
pages?
(i) First, they summarize the institutions and persons upon whom the
author relied for research assistance. This gives the reader an idea
of the extent, nature, and quality of the author's research, i.e. was
he/she cognizant of the work done by other researchers and scholars
plus was he/she aware of (and did he/she use) the major primary
sources which exist? If not, why not?
(ii) Did the author consult any NEW sources which have never been
previously utilized --- thus producing fresh insights?
Example: During the past 10-15 years there has been a major upsurge in
books which have explored the history of the postwar conservative and
anti-communist movements in the U.S. (many started out as doctoral
dissertations) and those books have often utilized new sources which
never previously informed the judgments of other authors.
Frequently, for example, scholars have done extensive research into
previously unavailable or little-known archives of private papers and/
or oral histories of persons and organizations which directly bear
upon whatever topics they discuss. In other cases, the author has
interviewed, for the first time, key players in controversial matters--
and has obtained unique insights from those interviews. In yet other
instances, the author has obtained first-time-released documents via
FOIA requests.
(iii) Acknowledgment and notes pages often identify persons whom the
author asked to review first drafts of the book (or perhaps specific
chapters) in order to correct errors and suggest avenues for further
research which the author may have overlooked.
Why is this important?
Because genuine scholars and independent researchers value critiques
by knowledgeable independent sources. Such evaluations (before
publication) help to reduce errors of fact, interpretation, and
judgment.
(iv) When applicable, research grants which made the research
possible are identified. Funding may be important because an author
might be unwilling to contradict the premises and conclusions favored
by the sources of his/her funds.
The complete absence of acknowledgements and notes pages in many
conspiracy books is an indication that these folks depend exclusively
upon the workings of their own mind. In short, there is no check-and-
balance mechanism in place to recognize, acknowledge, and correct
error.
CONSPIRACY “SCHOLARSHIP” -- part 2
As we consider all of the numerous right-wing political theories in
circulation, how do we choose which particular theory to believe?
Many times these theories have mutually exclusive propositions. In
other words, the theories cannot all be true simultaneously---but none
of their respective adherents is prepared to acknowledge that their
preferred theory is erroneous.
In an interview regarding the writings of Gary Allen and W. Cleon
Skousen, Dr. Carroll Quigley made the following comment about his own
research:
"I may be correct or I may be mistaken..."
Which conspiracy believer(s) (either an individual or the entire
conspiratorial school of thought that individual represents) has ever
acknowledged the possibility that they might be entirely "mistaken"?
In other words, would a Bircher ever say about their CFR/New World
Order theory: "I may be correct or I may be mistaken"? How about a
Christian Identity conspiracy theorist? How about an adherent of
William Pierce/National Alliance or Lyndon LaRouche or 9/11 conspiracy
theorists or holocaust denial theorists?
Most of us readily acknowledge our fallibility as human beings but
conspiracy proponents seem to start from the opposite point of view
i.e. the only possibility of error exists in the non-believer
community! Does that type of mindset recommend itself as being
capable of discerning fact from fiction or dealing fairly and
rationally with complex subject matter?
Ockham's razor and Counter-Intuitive Propositions
To believe any of the major right-wing political conspiracy theories
requires us to set aside most of what humans have learned from
historical experience and to accept the most counter-intuitive and
complex explanations.
(1) Belief requires acceptance of the idea that thousands upon
thousands of people have been willing participants in a conspiracy
over a very long period of time but not one person has ever become
disillusioned, and then defected, and then revealed confidential and
damaging data about the existence of the conspiracy to legal
authorities or congressional committees or the news media. [As news
reports from Washington DC over the past couple years make manifestly
clear, keeping secrets in our government (and in any free society) is
very problematic.]
(2) Belief also requires acceptance of the idea that much more
rigorous criminal conspiracies --- i.e. ones that are held together by
physical threats and intimidation and which often operate in closed
environments --- nevertheless routinely disintegrate and become known
relatively shortly after inception…but less robust political
conspiracies can somehow maintain superhuman iron discipline and never
be revealed or compromised by insiders even after decades of
existence.
By "more rigorous criminal conspiracies" I refer to the fact that
certain conspiracies involve intimately-connected persons who operate
in an environment where they directly control rewards and punishments
and they can inflict immediate and substantial harm upon uncooperative
individuals plus the conspirators are often trained in, and have
little compunction about using, violence to achieve their objectives---
which in this case is silence.
In recent weeks and months, for example, we have seen media reports
about conspiracy indictments or trial verdicts involving police
officers, military personnel, prison officials, and organized crime
figures. These folks work in an environment which routinely involves
threats, intimidation, and violence to keep people in line.
Police and prison officers can plant evidence, falsely testify
regarding criminal intent/behavior, or they may inflict extreme
psychic pressure and harassment upon non-cooperative individuals. The
"code of silence" which prevails among their peers often shields them
from exposure. Furthermore, the scope of their type of conspiracy
often involves a very small number of people who are under the direct
control, supervision, or purview of the conspirators. In addition,
there is the societal pre-disposition to believe whatever a policeman
or prison employee might say as compared to testimony from convicted
criminals or persons perceived as sociopaths and predators.
Similarly, military personnel can engage in torture, extreme forms of
harassment, or even kill persons they claim were "combatants" OR they
can allege "collateral damage" has occurred which covers-up their own
illegal acts (including murder) and thus they can feel confident that
their criminal acts and their conspiracy will remain un-exposed.
By contrast, the tools available to the CFR-NWO crowd to discourage
and prevent exposure of their conspiracy by co-conspirators or
witnesses are much more subtle and much less compelling.
Nevertheless, the police, military, organized crime, and prison
conspiracies are routinely penetrated, exposed, and prosecuted despite
their more self-sealing or invisible quality.
But we are asked to believe that the alleged CFR-NWO conspiracy (or
comparable other alleged political conspiracies) can operate with
invisibility and impunity decade after decade.
THE UNDERLYING DYNAMIC OF POLITICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY
A while back I stumbled across the results of a poll whose respondents
were Birch Society members/sympathizers in the New Orleans area.
The poll question was "Who killed Nicholas Berg?".
51% of respondents thought our CIA killed Berg.
14% agreed with the following statement about Berg: "He's not dead. It
was staged."
What possible methodology could one employ to prove either contention
false (to the satisfaction of those Birchers?)
As previously noted, the actual content of any given conspiracy theory
is of secondary importance. Instead, one needs to understand the
underlying dynamic at work.
Conspiracy theorists present themselves as being uniquely insightful,
i.e. they perceive relationships, unearth data, and connect dots which
escape 99% of the rest of humanity.
Why is it then, that their self-proclaimed superior intellect,
research skills, and analytical abilities are never employed to first
DISPROVE the most compelling competing theories which they believe to
be erroneous?
For example:
· Why can't Birchers definitively refute Christian Identity
theories?
· Why can't Birchers even convince their own dissident
elements (originating from within the JBS) that they have concocted a
theory which makes false sinister, defamatory assertions about the
background of many of the original JBS National Council members whom,
it is alleged, were actually secret CFR, freemason, Illuminati agents?
· Why can't Willis Carto adherents definitively refute
LaRouchian theories?
· Why can't CFR/New World Order/elitist hidden government
theorists definitively refute holocaust denial or other anti-semitic
theories?
In the process of successfully refuting alternative theories, these
folks would win legions of new followers to their own clearly
demonstrated superior theory! So why don’t they refute the competing
theories?
Conspiracy theory acts as a psychological tonic and establishes one's
own "superior" understanding of events and "the way things really
are".
Most political conspiracy theories presume a conscious, coherent plan
in operation for decades which proceeds almost flawlessly without ever
being exposed by its participants or witnesses.
In fact, it is this very quality (ultra-coherence) which renders
conspiracy theories so implausible. Conspiracy theories provide a
degree of order and clarity which rarely exists in human affairs.
(see “epistemology” section below for further comments).
So, under what circumstances would someone voluntarily relinquish such
a potent elixir and revert to an ordinary mortal's weak, ambiguous, or
unsatisfying understanding of history and contemporary events?
Conspiracy theories speak to an internal need for neat, orderly, and
unambiguous identification of enemies that one should vanquish and
render impotent within society.
From the perspective of the conspiracy adherent, nothing could be
worse than for objective conditions to improve----i.e. if the
improvement requires relinquishing some portion of their mistaken
dogma.
Over many decades, when one's personal political preferences are not
accepted or implemented, it may be too difficult for political
conspiracy believers to candidly acknowledge that their ideas and
proposals have little or no merit in the eyes of their fellow
countrymen---so, naturally, the believers search around for an
alternative explanation for the lack of popular support...and
conspiracy theories fill the bill perfectly.
RECURRING EPISTEMOLOGICAL DILEMMAS IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES
The John Birch Society presents sound advice about conspiracy theories
on its website: http://www.jbs.org/conspiracy
“Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet. While some may be fairly
accurate, others are not. Much of what is out there goes beyond the
facts into wild conjecturing, and even outright fabrication of
information. This has had an effect something like Gresham’s Law (‘bad
money drives out good money’), in which bad information drives out
good information. What is fact? What is fiction? How can you know?”
How indeed?
CONTRADICTIONS
For the past 26 years I have submitted thousands of FOIA requests to
the FBI and other government agencies. Most of my requests have
focused on individuals, organizations, and publications recommended by
the JBS as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable sources of
information.
During this process, I have discovered a recurring phenomenon, namely,
the sources recommended by the JBS often contradict themselves or they
contradict other sources which the JBS recommends --- which begs the
following questions:
1. How do conspiracy believers resolve conflicting testimony when a
source they recommend as honest, truthful and accurate nevertheless
contradicts their own statements --- including their sworn testimony
before legislative committees or in a courtroom?
2. Similarly, how do conspiracy believers go about deciding whom and
what to believe when two different sources (both of whom they describe
as knowledgeable and reliable) come to different conclusions about the
same subject matter?
For example:
(a) There are instances where FBI and Department of Justice
informants who subsequently became paid speakers for the Birch Society
made sensational statements or allegations during their JBS-sponsored
speeches and writings. However, when one acquires their FBI or
Department of Justice files --- there is no record that they ever
reported such data or raised such concerns during their time as an
informant! Examples include: Rev. Delmar Dennis, Julia Brown, and
Lola Belle Holmes.
(b) Furthermore, after they became paid speakers for the JBS, these
folks have categorically contradicted their previous testimony before
legislative committees, or in courtrooms, or in their articles and
books.
EXCEPTIONALISM -- How Do Conspiracies Operate?
Conspiracy believers often propose that we must accept what I describe
as their “exceptionalism” argument – i.e. the notion that we cannot
apply our accumulated historical knowledge about conspiracies to the
contemporary conspiracy alleged to be in operation.
In this scheme of things, we are asked to believe that the “CFR-New
World Order” conspiracy which they allege has been in existence for
decades does not operate according to normal rules of human behavior
nor does it operate in the same manner (or leave footprints) as do all
other conspiracies about which we have knowledge. Hence, we are asked
to believe that the methodology successfully used to detect,
penetrate, and expose previous conspiracies in U.S. history is now
inapplicable.
* ALL conspiracies are populated by actors who do not wish to be
detected.
* ALL conspiracies involve secrecy and deception.
* ALL conspiracies use methods to hide and protect the
conspirators and thwart penetration by outsiders
* ALL conspiracies have had defectors or disillusioned
participants or witnesses that have come forward to expose the
conspiracy.
During my many debates with believers in a CFR-New World Order
conspiracy, I have developed a series of questions which I use to
focus attention upon the intrinsic absurdity of many of their
propositions. I now present some of those questions because they can
be used to expose the defects within any conspiracy argument.
* What is the definition of NORMAL political behavior? In other
words, what criteria determines when behavior is conspiratorial as
opposed to normal political activity? Has there ever been a period in
U.S. history when conspiratorial forces were not predominant?
* Which objectives are the CFR-NWO conspiracy pursuing that it
cannot achieve by non-conspiratorial means? For example, according to
the most recent edition of the John Birch Society “Freedom
Index” (which scores all members of Congress with respect to “their
adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal
responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy
of avoiding foreign entanglements”) --- the average score for the
House of Representatives is 43% and the average score for the Senate
is 36%. In other words, the CFR-NWO crowd apparently is successful at
achieving its objectives through the legislative process---so why is a
“conspiracy” required?
* Are political conspirators ordinary mortals? Do they function
in the same manner as ordinary people? For example, do they have the
same range of emotions such as anger, jealousy, envy, pride,
admiration, respect?
* Are the persons involved in political conspiracies omniscient or
omnipotent? If not, are they fallible? Are they susceptible to the
same weaknesses and defects experienced by ordinary people such as:
stupidity, desire for revenge, failure to accomplish assigned tasks,
inability to resolve personality conflicts, inability to work well
with co-conspirators, incompetence, failure to anticipate adverse
results of their actions or decisions?
* From our knowledge of previous conspiracies…
o typically, how long from the inception of the conspiracy
did it take before the existence of the conspiracy became known?
o how are conspiracies normally organized? For example: are
there regularly scheduled meetings? Are any notes taken? Are there
written memos, reports, or any other documentary evidence? Is there
any sort of organizational chart?
o How do conspirators communicate with each other? For
example: when a new policy or objective is decided upon, how does
senior management of the conspiracy inform their subordinates?
Newsletter? Phone calls? Emails? Or what?
o Do the conspirators usually have regular full-time jobs
doing things un-related to the conspiracy? If so, how much time are
they normally able to devote to the conspiracy? Does the conspiracy
normally take priority over their family life? If so, this must
create tension or acrimony within their families who feel neglected---
just as is the case with many prominent persons whose careers absorb
their time. What evidence do we have of such conspirator family
quarrels or friction?
o Every conspiracy we can name (for example: Mafia,
Watergate, CPUSA, tobacco companies, Enron, KKK) has produced insiders
who defected and told their stories to law enforcement, legislative
committees, and/or news media. Specify some defectors from the “CFR-
New World Order” conspiracy.
o In every organization there is competition for leadership
and influence. That competition often leads to internal disputes and
hurt feelings. Usually, when policy or personal differences result in
acrimonious exchanges, someone leaks embarrassing information as
“payback” to get even. Is there such evidence in CFR-NWO conspiracy
history?
o How is the conspiracy financed? What financial records,
if any, are kept and by whom? Are the records audited in any way?
Does the conspiracy assess dues or require periodic financial
contributions?
o Every conspiracy we know about has produced defectors or
disillusioned participants or witnesses who copied confidential
internal documents and then released them to law enforcement or
Congressional investigators or the news media. The documents often
reveal membership or financial data, mailing lists, or other
confidential information. Are there any such defectors, witnesses, or
disillusioned participants who have provided such documentary evidence
about the CFR-NWO conspiracy
o With respect to specific defectors or disillusioned
participants…
+ Have they made any statement which summarized their
conspiratorial career? In other words, something that starts with “I
joined the conspiracy” on (date) and then proceeds to explain (a)
their reasons for joining, and (b) what his/her specific role was in
the conspiracy, i.e. what tasks he/she was assigned, and (c) why and
when he/she left the conspiracy? Was the conspirator unsuccessful at
any assigned task? If so, specify examples.
+ Does the participant state whether or not he/she was
a junior or senior officer within the conspiracy? Or was he/she just
a follower of orders but not a decision-maker?
+ How often did the conspirator attend conspiracy
meetings? Who was present at those meetings? After the meetings, did
the conspirator prepare written notes about what transpired? What
plots were discussed at these meetings and which of those plots did
the conspirator participate in?
+ What specific tasks was the conspirator assigned by
their superiors after joining? Who were their superiors? How much
direct contact did conspirators have with their superiors? Was that
contact by phone or in writing or what? Are there any records of
such contacts?
+ Are there any documents (or confirming testimony by
other members of the conspiracy) that establishes that the defecting
conspirator was actually a member of that conspiracy and which also
discusses the conspirator’s status within the hierarchy of the
conspiracy?
+ By definition, conspiracy refers to illegal behavior
so….on what date did the conspirator first contact law enforcement
authorities to report his/her participation in the conspiracy and the
illegal activities he/she was associated with? Did the conspirator
prepare a sworn affidavit or testify under oath in court or before
legislative committees about his/her participation in a conspiracy?
+ If the conspirator never reported his/her
participation in the conspiracy to law enforcement or other entities –
how do we know that he/she genuinely left the conspiracy? How do we
determine whether or not a conspirator genuinely departed as opposed
to merely pretending to be a defector in order to become a
disinformation agent to confuse authorities and the public about the
actual existence, operations or objectives of the conspiracy?
+ By revealing the names of their co-conspirators, the
defecting conspirator would expect hostility and reprisals. Can you
cite some examples of such hostility and reprisals directed against
the defecting conspirator --- such as comments made in court
testimony, newspaper or magazine articles, interviews, or on websites
--- where the defecting conspirator is denounced?
YoHarvey
From JFK to 9/11: Why People Believe in Conspiracies
by Dennis Prager
06/12/2007
Vincent Bugliosi's remarkable 20-year work on who killed John F.
Kennedy has just been published. Containing about a million and a half
words and thousands of footnotes, "Reclaiming History" is probably the
most detailed examination of one moment in time ever written. It
reconfirms that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing
the American president.
As one who never doubted the original U.S. government report that
Oswald acted alone, I am deeply grateful to Bugliosi for the service
he has rendered our country. But I also regret that he had to.
Why did he have to? Because it was necessary to definitively refute
all those who believe, despite bipartisan government reports and
excellent books such as Gerald Posner's "Case Closed," that there was
some conspiracy to kill President Kennedy and that Oswald was not the
only shooter.
There is not a shred of evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill
John F. Kennedy, but that is entirely irrelevant to those who choose
to believe that there was one. The lack of evidence only reinforces
their belief that a conspiracy has been hidden.
One would think that someone would have come forward in the last 44
years to tell the world about the conspiracy. He or she would become a
major figure in history, not to mention the likelihood of becoming
very wealthy. But somehow, despite the fact that the government can
rarely hide for months even what it wishes to hide, both Democratic
and Republican administrations acting in cooperation with each other
have hidden these facts.
As Bugliosi pointed out to me, it would in fact have had to be a
double conspiracy -- first, the plot to assassinate, and then the plot
by a much larger group, including many honorable people involved in
the investigation, to cover up the original conspiracy.
Likewise, given the vast amount of planning and implementation -- and
the large number of people -- that would have been involved in
arranging the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center towers and
part of the Pentagon, not one person has come forward -- not one
American or foreigner, not one leftist or rightist -- to reveal a U.S.
government plot to murder thousands of Americans and bring down two of
the tallest buildings in the world.
Why, then, do people believe in these and other conspiracies? (Of
course, there are known conspiracies -- Osama bin Laden and others
conspired in the 9/11 plot -- but there are no successful hidden
conspiracies. I cannot think of one in my lifetime.) There are at
least six major reasons:
1. Many people find it impossible to believe that a few utterly
unimpressive individuals can do so much damage. Lee Harvey Oswald, a
man who can best be described as simply a loser, could change history
all by himself? It doesn't seem to make sense.
2. Many people want to blame those they loathe for as much of what
they do not like as possible. Just about everyone who believes in
hidden conspiracies attributes those conspiracies to those they hate.
People who hate President George W. Bush blame him and his
administration for 9/11. Egyptians who hate Israel have blamed AIDS on
Israeli prostitutes. Indeed, attributing to Jews hidden conspiracies
-- the "world Jewish conspiracy," the "Protocols of the Elders of
Zion" -- is the oldest and most common belief in a hidden conspiracy.
3. One should never underestimate the power of boredom -- and the
subsequent yearning for excitement -- to affect people's thinking and
behavior. Belief in a hidden conspiracy is far more exciting than
accepting prosaic truths. Figuring out the "mystery" of who killed JFK
is a much bigger thrill than accepting that one jerk was responsible.
Deciphering who was "really" responsible for 9/11 is a lot more
interesting than accepting that 19 Arabs with box cutters did it.
4. People who feel powerless over their own lives are far more likely
to believe that some invisible force controls their fate than people
who believe that they are the masters of their lives.
5. There is, apparently, a great yearning among many people to believe
that there is hidden knowledge and that they have access to it. It
makes them feel special, perhaps even superior to the rest of us who
do not have access to this hidden knowledge.
6. In Western societies, it appears that secular people are more
likely to believe in hidden conspiracies than the more religious. It
may be that the religious already believe in an invisible power that
governs the universe -- God -- and therefore seem to have much less of
a psychological or emotional need to believe in invisible powers on
earth.
Whichever reason or reasons apply, the bottom line about those who
believe in hidden conspiracies is this: They choose to believe in
them. Their psyche, their emotions, and/or their political agenda
bring them to their belief in a hidden conspiracy. Never the facts.
Mr. Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los
Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a
Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.
Bud
Complex question. I`ve been studying the kooks for a while, but I
don`t have a definitive answer. The appeal is part that it is a group
effort creative writing project, where everyone gets to join in and
contribute to the group effort (it`s sort of like pacman now, where
you try to guide the poor patsy through all the traps, pitfalls, and
huge blinking signs indicating his guilt). It seems to appeal to a
certain type of politically oriented individual, the kind that thinks
the government is up to all kinds of no good (and surprisingly good at
it). I also think a lot of the appeal is that many of the kooks
associate themselves with Oswald, being similar leftest social
outcasts/losers. Since they see themselves as Oswald, and they
personally wouldn`t harm a hair on Kennedy`s sainted head, they feel
that Oswald wouldn`t have done so either.
aeffects
As the lurkers can see, it doesn't take much to fuck up old Budless
the Dudster. A little evidence/testimony and the Lone Nut shithead
wilts!
aeffects
off your scabbed, well-worn knees boyo..... this is a family board,
dipshit!
Sam Brown
"Steve" <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e38f8a9-a3f7-456c...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Some use it as an excuse for their pathetic, empty lives and the fact that
they feel like failures. It's the comfort in thinking that odds were always
articificially stacked against you, and there lies a fantastic excuse for
why your life is so dreadful. eg: The Junkie, Gilly the bigot, Toothless,
Rob Caprio etc.....
aeffects
> "Steve" <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
called guilt Sam-little man-in-the-boat-Bo, you're sinning against
nature, that takes a toll, troll. Have npo fear toots-e-roll, we'll
send ice water......
justm...@gmail.com
Oh Lord, the scum that talks about sex and perversion in every one of
his posts is now preaching the bible. That's a big
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Have NPO fear????
It really kills you to see someone have a happy life when you live in
a dump and are a junkie doesn't it?
Your jealously rings loud and clear with every post you make. Sure
sucks to be you Healy....but the she males you date love it. LOL
robc...@netscape.com
> Stepping out of my historian's shoes and stepping into my
> psychologist's shoes let me pose a question for the Lone Nut advocates
> out there. I am endlessly amazed at how the conspiracy- believing
> mind works, and when I lecture my classes I spend one full class
> period (96 minutes) each semester discussing WHY some people are pre-
> disposed to believe in conspiracies. But I would love to add some new
> reasons to my lecture. All of us have been plagued with consiracy-
> thinkers for years but what really makes them tick? ( I already know
> what makes them tock) In your own experiences why do YOU believe
> conspiracy believers tend to love being on the conspiracy side of the
> fence so much. And please keep in mind, conspiracy belief, much like
> a disease, spreads to MANY topics. A great example is Crazy Old Jack
> White. Crazy Jack believes in multiple conspiracies surrounding the
> Kennedy assassination, each one more wacky than the one before, but it
> doesn't stop there, he also believe that O.J. Simpson was totally
> innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, he also believes
> that the moon landings were all faked, and that the 9/11 attacks were
> all a government plot. I'm sure he believes in more but I don't
> really have the time or interest to follow Crazy Jack around too
> much.
The birth of CTism BEGINS when the OFFICIAL explanation/theory/reason
(s) make NO sense and/or are full of LIES. Look at any CT and you
will see an OFFICIAL EXPLANATION that is full of lies and conjecture!
Why NOT ask your classes about the NEED of governments to LIE to their
people for a change?? Oh that is right, YOU WON'T KEEP YOUR JOB LONG
DOING THAT KIND OF STUFF, now will you? How can someone take a job
that requires them to LIE constantly in order to keep their job??
NOW that would be a great topic for your class, huh?
> Why is this so. I am ONLY looking for reasons that are legitimate.
> We already know they are crazy, but what makes belief in conspiracies
> so alluring and so comforting to some people?
The same old tactic at work, it has been used since the beginning of
time, ANYONE who dares NOT believe everything their government tells
them is a "kook" or is crazy, huh??? I would think the opposite is
true as these folks are using their "God-given" brains to think for
themselves instead of believing every lie that is told to them.
Remember, the Nazis perfected the lie, and they taught us that a "very
big one" is easier to believe.