Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How To Identify An Actual Conspiracy Theory

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 12:33 PM
Original message
How To Identify An Actual Conspiracy Theory
I wrote this up for another list and I figured I would post it here in case it's useful to anyone. Enjoy, and remember, your mileage may vary.
***********
As long as I'm at it, maybe I should share the criteria I have come
up with for determining when something is a crazy conspiracy nut
theory and when something is so crazy it might be true:

SIGNS THAT YOU'VE GOT A HOLD OF A CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY

1. Flagrant violation of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor is the principle that the simplest solution is most
likely to be the correct one. Not always true, but true often enough
that you can rely on it. A theory that requires all kinds of
elaborate mental contortions and bizarre coincidences to explain
something that has an obvious and much more mundane possible
explanation is probably on the wacky side.

2. Attributes to individuals or organizations a level of control over
the universe that no human being or group of human beings could ever
have.

One of my crackpot theories about conspiracy theories is that they
express the fact that what most of us are most afraid of,
philosophically speaking, is meaninglessness. In other words, rather
than accept the idea that life is a random collection of unrelated
and purposeless events, we would really all prefer to believe that it
is the result of some carefully coordinated and complex plan--*even
if* the person who came up with that plan is an evil mastermind. Many
a conspiracy theory has been cooked up in order to protect ourselves
from those two existentially terrifying little words, "Shit happens."

3. Explains too much.

Kind of a variation on #2: Any theory that leads you to
say, "Ahh...now all of a sudden IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!" is probably
fool's gold. The Grand Unified Theory may exist in physics for all I
know, but human life is messy enough that I'm confident that it does
not exist in the political or social realm. Most ideological systems
to come up with some approximation of a Grand Unified Theory (it's
all about capital/ it's all about power/ it's all about gender/ it's
all about nationalism/ it's all about God's will, etc.) but only in
the most general sense. Anyone who tells you a story that makes you
see every single thing that goes on in the world as an integral part
of a greater narrative progressing to a specific conclusion desired
by a certain powerful group of people is probably either lying or
wrong.

On the other hand, here are some handy identifying markers of

THINGS THE MEDIA WILL ALWAYS CALL A CONSPIRACY THEORY, EVEN IF IT'S
WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING

1. Anything that requires us to acknowledge that the Bush crew does
not have America's best interests at heart.

For some reason, the media just will not take seriously any
explanation of any Bush team action that is not based on the
assumption that Bush is really doing the best he can to govern the
country well and help his people out. Mainstream coverage of Bush is
always done from the POV of someone who believes that Bush is really
trying to do the right thing, even if he's pitifully mistaken about
what it is. The idea that Bush might be governing just to suit
himself and his cronies, and doesn't give a flying fuck what happens
to anyone else, is treated by the MSM as beyond the pale, when to
many of us it is a blindingly obvious fact of life.

2. Anything that suggests deliberate deception or fraud on the part
of the Bush administration.

You can say that there were some pretty funky things that happened
during the last presidential election; but you are not allowed to
suggest that they happened because Bush's team was deliberately
manipulating the process in order to skew the results. Cause
apparently only crazy people believe that their President might be a
crook. Even though we have had crook presidents and stolen elections
before.

3. Anything that suggests that Bush's foreign and domestic policies
might be the result of a hidden agenda.

Kind of a variant on #1, but again, apparently the memo has gone out
to the mainstream press that you can never suggest that the goal of a
particular policy might actually be the polar opposite of what they
*say* the goal is, no matter how obvious that might be to the
impartial observer.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CitySky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. gingerly removing tinfoil hat...
but, ahem, does the US backing of the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Haiti one year ago this week qualify under part II, subsection B?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. one thing though
occams razor includes the caveat that the simpleist explanation THAT INCLUDES ALL THE DATA is correct. a subtle difference, but important in some circumstances.

sorry to nitpick:) great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Very important point
that is often ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. What??? Bush doesn't have our best interests at heart???
Nah, it can't be true...

:silly:

I reccomended this for the greatest page, and I printed it out too.

Even though I have an entire shelf full of tinfoil hats.

(The Occam razor resistant hats are my favorites.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Another clue in my opinion
If the potential conspirators point to somebody or a group of people and falsely project upon them that they are the orchestrators behind a conspiracy, then it's a conspiracy.

I think a good example would be the RW'ers who claimed Clinton was a murderer and also claimed that he was a key player in the NWO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. NeoCons have a habit of projecting what they are doing, right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Neo-Cons projected to us that the Muslim world was conspiring against us
Thus, a Conspiracy.

We need to write a manual: How to spot a Conspiracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. Frustrating all the CT. I just keep repeating that it is called DENIAL
and is the first stage of loss. That the truth is that Bush did win, bin Laden did bomb, blah blah...and that therefore the way out of the problem is a long hard slog and not the possibility of instant information that will change things back. In other words.. you lost the election & the sociopaths won, now that is the problem you face: 4 more years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. bush got way more ELECTRICAL votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I agree that Bush won - that is what I said. Enough with the CT
Bush & his ilk are creeps & manipulators and they are in power for 4 more years.

That being said - you can make a chart do anything when you do not have all fifty states and you use purdy colors. I don't quite understand what your point is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. And luckily, the second step in the grieving process
after denial is anger.

So, we have some fun to look forward to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. We need a category that fall between conspiracy and "shit happens"
Here's an example of something I've been thinking about lately:

People on the extreme right, especially right-wing businessmen, have always hated the New Deal, and Social Security in particular. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1947, it was their unconcealed desire to undo the New Deal -- but their attacks on it didn't get very far and actually helped ensure Truman's re-election.

At that point, repeal of Social Security stopped being part of the official Republican agenda -- but it remained very much alive on the extreme right. For example, it was one of the goals of the John Birch Society. At the same time, the right started fostering a cult of extreme individualism and self-reliance which could be used to make the end of Social Security seem philosophically attractive to people for whom it made no economic sense.

Then, perhaps fifteen years ago, the idea started to be spread around that Social Security was going to go bankrupt, that it wouldn't be there by the time younger workers were ready to retire, that the system was doomed. In retrospect, it seems clear that this idea was being spread very deliberately by right-wing fundraisers and advocacy groups, but at the time it just seemed like common wisdom -- something everybody knew and believed implicitly.

And now we see the fruit of that whispering campaign in the form of Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security in the name of saving it.


So -- is there a conspiracy at play here? Over the last fifteen years, quite possibly, if by conspiracy you mean a unified group of people who share common goals and consciously work towards them behind a variety of false fronts.

Over the last sixty years, on the other hand, there's been something going on that doesn't quite rise to the level of conscious conspiracy, but also can't be dismissed as merely coincidence or "shit happens." It's more like a loose network of like-minded people, extending over several generations, sharing a very definite goal and pressing towards that goal at every opportunity and in the face of all opposition.

What's more, those same people have also been working steadily towards related goals, including repeal of the progressive income tax, health and safety regulations, and environmental protections.

So what do you call that sort of long-term collusion? It doesn't depend on "the result of some carefully coordinated and complex plan" cooked up by an evil mastermind in his basement laboratory. Instead, it's based on common goals, supported by a lot of ad hoc coordination and in-the-moment adaptation to circumstances. But has exactly the same result as the classic notion of a conspiracy.

And it does make sense of an awful lot of the crap that has been going on in this country. It says that the situation we find ourselves in right now is exactly the situation that a lot of nasty old men wanted to put us in going back to 1947 -- and that this is no coincidence. And it says that there is no need to keep trotting out that tired old whipping boy of "human stupidity" as an explanation for anything and everything, when the alternative explanation that a bunch of rich guys are getting together to fix prices or screw the poor will cover the bases for more efficiently.


Back around 1971, I believed I had stumbled on the secret of the universe, and the secret was this: Human history isn't nearly as messy as they want you to believe it is, and anybody who tells you differently is probably trying to hide something from you.

A lot of the blinding revelations of 1971 have turned out to be not-so-blinding after all, but I've never had reason to doubt that one. Human history is like a series of copycat threads at DU -- people running changes on one another's ideas and then tossing them back into the mix. The same themes keep coming round with small variations, forming a grand improvisational symphony where even the bits that may not have fit in originally eventually get picked up and woven into the larger whole.

One bad thing happening to one person may be random shit. But when a whole slew of bad things keep happening to the same class of people -- for example, when the news tells us that black men in America are currently undergoing four differend kinds of catastrophe all at once -- I find it very hard to believe that isn't happening because a certain group of people decided thirty years ago that they wanted it to happen.

And I don't regard myself as a crazy conspiracy theorist for thinking so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Operation NORTHWOODS sounds like crazy conspiracy talk.
Yet, it was an official Pentagon plan to kill Americans proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 as a way of formenting public opinion in support of a Cuba invasion. President John F. Kennedy fired JCS Chief Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer shortly after receiving the document.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University has good reading on the subject:

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuban Invasion in 1962

In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

SOURCE:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Link to PDF of Operation NORTHWOODS plan:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. If it bites me in the a** it's real.
Theory is trying to determine what the other guy meant to do or meant by what he did.

All most of us are trying to get on the record is what the F*** happened and we can't even get the media to do that.

Exception to be made for the honorable William Pitt (Truth Out) and Laurie Garrett (told Newsday to stuff it) among other REAL reporters we've come to admire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you for these important points.
People are quick to polarize: There are the conspiracy theorists, and then there's everyone else. Everyone else includes a lot of people who are made extremely uncomfortable by the tinfoil hatters, and who aren't shy about letting everyone know it.

But there are two real facts.

1. Not everything is a conspiracy.
2. Conspiracies exist.

Us pajama-wearing bloggerazzi try to distinguish between the official version of stories and the CT version without benefit of much original-source data at all -- and lots of data of dubious worth. It makes for an exciting way to spend our free time, for sure. But it's really hard to tell how seriously to take what we come up with. I speak as someone who is open to *all* of them, and actively investigates many... but who would place money on very few.

With an administration that has been caught in lie after lie after lie, we KNOW there's stuff they're covering up.

I just wish the MSM, with all their investigative power and money and access, were on our side, and would do some useful work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. A conspiracy theory ceases to be a theory when there is evidence. 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. It's always a theory if it explains evidence.
It's only thrown out as a theory if it explains nothing, or is inconsistent with evidence, or has no evidence attached to it.

I think we use the word theory loosely: a theory isa what explains a series of facts/occurences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC