3 Good Reasons (and 1 Bad One) Why I Don't Buy Into Your Conspiracy Theories

[progressoid]

3 Good Reasons (and 1 Bad One) Why I Don't Buy Into Your Conspiracy Theories
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2009.


Evidence and 'Evidence'

Conspiracists often suggest that the evidence for their theory is overwhelming, but on critical inspection, it simply doesn't stand up. I've approached conspiracy theories with an open mind and have found them to begin with a conclusion and work backward to "prove" its veracity.

...snip...



Structuralism and Dark Forces

Central to most conspiracy theories is the notion that the visible institutions of power in our society are merely puppets being pulled by invisible but all-powerful forces working behind the scenes. The forces vary -- the neocons behind PNAC, international Jewry, the Illuminati, bankers, the New World Order, the Bilderbergers, etc., but the theme is a constant -- someone we can't readily identify is really in charge, and all the visible centers of power right there before are eyes are merely actors on a grand stage.

...snip...

To the degree that conspiracism ignores the real centers of power in our society in favor an image of a murky globalist cabal, it doesn't do much to advance our understanding of the world in which we live, and that is itself a major reason not to take the lion's share of these theories seriously.




Distraction and Marginalization of Serious Questions

The most harmful effect of conspiracy theories -- which, in my experience are often built on some small kernel of verifiable truth -- is that it pre-empts serious analysis and investigation of the really important issues by marginalizing those performing the analysis and making the questions themselves appear to be based on crazy, fringe propositions. They serve to distract from the real dynamics that more often than not underlie the plots cooked up by overheated imaginations.

...

But asking those questions puts one at risk of being lumped in with a fringe movement, and the result is that we're less likely to get at the truth about what happened that day because of the 9/11 Truth movement, not despite its tireless efforts (a conspiracy theory as good as any other is that the whole 9/11 "Truth" movement is a government operation designed to prevent serious questioning of what led up to the events of that infamous day).

...snip...




Bad Reason

I'm most familiar with 9/11 conspiracism, and over the years I've interacted with many bright, intelligent and wholly sane members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Some I even consider friends. But those voices are, in my experience, overshadowed by those of people whose paranoia is quite apparent, or whose theories are, on their face, nothing short of insane (not long ago, a reader went on at some length about how utterly brain-dead I must be for failing to see the obvious truth: the World Trade Center towers were brought down by Chinese space lasers, and those planes that appeared to crash into the buildings were obviously just holographic projections).

Similarly, while conspiracism is by no means limited to the political right, most conspiracy theories are based in an old form of right-wing populism, with fear of the pernicious role of foreign influence on our society at their heart -- the idea of the heroic "ordinary American" trapped under the yoke of an international conspiracy by unseen forces aided by a complicit government.

...snip...

Rejecting arguments based on the characteristics of their proponents is a classic logical fallacy. But it's also human nature, and journalists, writers and editors are only human.


More at:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/140066/3_good_reasons_%28and_1_bad_one%29_why_i_don%27t_buy_into_your_conspiracy_theories/

[cali]

1. interesting piece.

I suggest people read the entire thing. One of my problems with the out there CTs- such as the shadowy cabals ruling the world- is that the "evidence" is almost wholly a distortion of facts or causation=correlation.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. One of the many problems with the label "conspiracy theory" is that

it tends to lump together people with a wide variety of viewpoints -- everything from deliberate and reasonable to certifiably insane. And, of course, the insane ones are then put on display as representatives of the whole group. Reminds me of the paranoia of some white people that they will no longer be the majority. This rests on the assumption that people of color are all part of one monolithic group. They aren't, of course, and neither are conspiracy theorists.

Speaking as someone who could be called a conspiracy theorist, I think one of the great pitfalls of CT is that once you realize you're being lied to, you lose a crucial frame of reference. Everything has the potential to be called into question. As a result, it's easy to be cast adrift. You need to work hard to maintain your moorings.

[CJCRANE]

2. 3 Good Reasons Why I Don't Buy Into Politics...

would be a vague title because "Politics" has a very broad definition.

But "Conspiracy Theories" is also very vague...does it refer to the speculation that the Bush administration sanctioned torture...because that and many more theories have been proven to be true.

[democraticinsurgent]

3. Taking the easy way out

Alternet, like DU, tends to take the easy way out on "conspiracies". Doing so maintains their credibility in mainstream circles, so it's understandable on many levels.

The actual truth, however, is quite murky and it's sad that pursuit of that truth garners the label "conspiracy theory" instead of "investigation".

Easy to knock down some straw men, as this writer does, and then paint everyone with a broad brush.

Shame.

[Echo In Light]

8. Most "CT" is simply big business doing business within the confines of illusory democracy

In other words, if the powerful didn't have to worry about public perception/backlash, they'd just do whatever the hell they want - mind you that corporations are private tyrannies, and are by and large not held accountable to the public.

But having to maintain the ruse of being upstanding, law abiding, adhering to democratic ideals, etc, creates the need of convoluted cover stories used by our mainstream media to disguise the sins and crimes of the corporate/state nexus. The ruse relies heavily upon the emotional manipulation of the public, and their want of believing, not based on facts or track record (obvious aims, motives), that the captains of the home team would NEVER do such a thing.

[democraticinsurgent]

14. well said n/t

[glitch]

21. I call it the curse of respectability. Once you decide you want to be accepted by the "mainstream"

you self-filter your input, which makes you miss a lot of what may or may not be going on.

"Alternet, like DU, tends to take the easy way out on "conspiracies". Doing so maintains their credibility in mainstream circles, so it's understandable on many levels."

On the other hand, if you have a public forum and you open it up to discussing CT openly, you get deluged with "mud", another useful technique for shutting down discussion. Shouting down comes first, that's easy and effective for awhile. When ridicule starts to fail the "alien lizards" show up to a) muddy the waters and b) make the ridicule more effective. Simple formula, mostly effective. The writer in this article describes it without identifying it -- the Chinese lasers bringing down the WTC is a perfect example.

[OnyxCollie]

23. Author James Bamford,

who has written many books on the NSA and spying, was on the Diane Rehm show. He was asked by a caller if he believed bushco was behind 9/11, spying for corporate gain, etc. He said he wasn't going to speculate on motivations, as the things he wrote about were bad enough.

Here's a guy who has written all about bushco's actions, and even he won't step out of line.

See also Vincent Bugliosi.

[glitch]

24. Look what they do to those that step out of line, like Russ Baker.

I heard him interviewed on KPFA and he said absolutely no one from corporate media would interview him or even publish a review of his book, and he is one of their own. Or was. That's why I don't really bother with TV pundits much, not even Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Even the best, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, stick to the safer skewers.

Vincent Bugliosi did venture off the canned hunt reserve for awhile there, but he's back in line with a vengence now! :crazy:

[omega minimo]

27. That explains 3 decades of Reaganism, RLite, DINOs, zombie Boomers, clueless XYZers, U.S. lemmings..

"Once you decide you self-filter your input, which makes you miss a lot of what may or may not be going on."

That was Reagan's "Morning In America" and most all drank the damn Kool Aid.

Now, an excellent post like Echo In Light's presents that state of the nation as a given, without perspective that it was not always so, that it WAS an agenda of the Right -- hell, call it a conspiracy! A conspiracy in plain sight to disinform, declaw and discombobulate the US public and their politics.




#11 Echo In Light

The mind boggles. However, public apathy and indoctrination are actually one of this country's primary defining characteristics. It's what makes America, America. You can take the most blatant examples of crime and cover up by the most powerful, and their various enablers, and use the media to deflect the obvious, and most people will buy it, no questions asked.

[anigbrowl]

28. No, abandoning standards of evidence is the easy way out

Good intentions don't give a pass on logic or reason. Many CTers just don't seem to grasp the scientific method, and when this is pointed out they complain that it's an attempt to keep their ideas down. Which is why I would never, ever hire a CTer for any job that required engineering skills.

[truedelphi]

36. I don't know if something is a conspiracy BUT

There are sure a lot of things that seem to be beautifully executed takeovers!

Cigareette companies promoting cigarettes, denying the harm, is one that comes to mind.

[RandomThoughts]

4. Its spiritual not always a conspiracy

That's why nobody can find how they are all connected.

And there is more then one spiritual source, from what I have seen, dark side can actually make people say things. I knew a guy he would always say the most inappropriate things, he never knew why. I think it was the bad side hurting him and people around him. But it usually happened when he was angry. I am not saying he is not responsible, the idea came into his head and he agreed to say it.


Although light side does a similar thing and can also help with words, it even says it in the Bible.
Mark 13:11
But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

This brings up a question of existence. We are more then ourselves, but the two sides are different, one side first uses trickery, deception and fear, to try to get a person to do or say things.

The other side really gives free will, you have the choice day to day, but at times you do say things that are for more purposes then you know. But there is no fear or control or meanness, even when learning new things its usually with joyous humor.

But life has a spiritual component, and not all of it is good. Which is alot for some people to handle. But it requires faith, and interpretation, so it is hard to define, what one person might see as scary or bad, you can see the good parts that are spectacular. And each person sees something different.

[soryang]

5. Is this a peer reviewed scientific publication

...or just smug conclusory statements?

[progressoid]

10. yes

[soryang]

41. nonsense

[SidDithers]

6. K&R...thanks for posting...nt

Sid

[Maru Kitteh]

7. K&R. Fantastic piece, and SO true.

[Beam Me Up]

9. The "conspiracy theory" label is used to deflect, attention, analysis and discussion.

I"m a proud "truther" and I fully acknowledge that SOME "conspiracy theories" are pointing in the wrong direction and are based on inconclusive evidence. However, that doesn't mean that all conspiracy theories fall in to that pejorative sense. I agree with Peter Dale Scott's analysis: There is a "public state" and a "deep state".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5671209 One thing in the public arena may be occurring while a completely different thing may be happening behind the scenes within the 'national security bureaucracy' or its various agencies.

Anyone who doesn't see that covert agencies exist, with covert agendas and programs, obviously isn't paying attention. What the hell is this torture issue about if not a conspiracy to commit crimes orchestrated by top officials in the Bush administration and carried out by the CIA and other groups and cloaked behind the rubric of "national security"? What if people started labeling this issue a "conspiracy theory"? Well, it IS a conspiracy theory NOT in the pejorative sense.

[Echo In Light]

11. I know. Yet there are still scores of people who would shout "Nu-auh!"

The mind boggles. However, public apathy and indoctrination are actually one of this country's primary defining characteristics. It's what makes America, America. You can take the most blatant examples of crime and cover up by the most powerful, and their various enablers, and use the media to deflect the obvious, and most people will buy it, no questions asked.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

13. Can I say "ditto" ?

Yes. I said it before I heard limbaugh say it

[unc70]

29. The "deep state" in all its forms is the US equiv of Gladio/"Stay Behind"

No, they are not "equivalent" operations; they are all part of the same monster, its current form rising from the ashes of WWII but its "family tree" goes back at least two centuries. When you know details about Operation Gladio in Italy, where many wild CT allegations have now been confirmed as true by government officials or proven in the courts. Everyone reading this thread needs to quickly refresh and review what is known about Operation Gladio and related groups before reading the rest of this thread or anything else. When I did this recently while doing other research, I was amazed how many CT claims now proven or strongly supported by new information, even some allegations I had previous dismissed completely seemed at least plausible.

The various parts fall into place and where to look for missing ones: from the "continuity of government" (aka FEMA coup) plannning to Operation Northwoods to JFK to the WP/CIA connections to drugs to banking/energy/weapons cartels to control of the media.

Another interesting piece of the puzzle involves the seizure/transfer/looting of German technology and other IP and what happened to it later, and which people and companies profitted. Related topics include the people appointed to administor German after the war, their decisions, and what was happening out of sight.

Older topics that I find germane today include the Opium trade/Wars and the rise of Morgan and competing banks.

[Beam Me Up]

35. All right on the mark. n/t

[dashrif]

12. I have

a good one I think Carl Weathers will run for and win Governor of some state, maybe the state of Nevada (a wink at Apollo Creed)or his home state of Louisiana.

I like to call it the Predator Conspiracy Theory people who stared in that movie will become Governor.

Play Dark Music

[Telly Savalas]

31. Connect the dots.

Predator was released by Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox. Anyone who won't seriously consider this film as a vehicle for promoting the agenda of the Bush/Murdoch cabal is afraid to ask the right questions.

[nichomachus]

15. Conspiracy theory: Any theory I'm not comfortable contemplating -- or have an interest in squelching

[tomp]

22. yes. nt

[OnyxCollie]

16. Knowing how the chess pieces move

does not a chess master make. It requires strategy, what this writer (and many others lack).

I just finished writing a paper for my international relations grad class. My topic was The Invasion of Iraq: Realism vs. Imperialism. Using political theories of realism and capitalist imperialism, I had to evaluate whether the invasion was for national security or if it was to benefit the private sector.

Realism failed. The threats the administration claimed were either exaggerated or false. And not by accident. The intelligence was funneled through the Office of the Director of Intelligence, where anything that did not fit was discarded. (A popular tactic of the Bush Administration- put a crony in a gatekeeper position.)

Plus, prewar assessments of Iraq and its neighbors that said invading Iraq would jeopardize America's security. These turned out to be true.

Couple this with the cost in blood and treasure, and it becomes clear invading Iraq has weakened national security.

But, hey. It was just a bad decision. Right? No.

Moving to capitalist imperialism, corporations look for opportunities to exploit to gain resources, territory, etc. That's what capitalism does. That's ALL it does. Wolfowitz's Defense Planning Guidance document called for invading Iraq to secure oil for America, unilaterally if necessary. PNAC's Statement of Principles and Rebuilding America's Defenses lamented the end of the Cold War and called for increasing the defense budget to meet the needs of the new century. Cheney's National Energy Plan Development Group (NEPDG) was created in Bush's first week in office. From what could be gathered (Cheney and the NEPDG refused to provide info the the General Accounting Office, resulting in a lawsuit that Cheney won. The cause was taking up by others. See the SCOTUS' Cheney v U.S. District Court, but the decision was the same.), the NEPDG met with oil executives who provided guidance.

There are structural and political constraints preventing that, however. It takes a significant force to quickly overcome these constraints. Nationalism after an attack develops into imperialism, and misperceptions generated by Pentagon pundits and spread by an eager media, along with religious overtones partnered with brute force (appealing to the religiously dogmatic/ authoritarian personality), suppressed these constraints. A mythos of "cold-blooded killers" who must be "smoked out of their holes" appealed to Americans (and benefited the ruling class.)

Wolfowitz became the president of the World Bank. What does the deputy Secretary of Defense know about helping poor people? Nothing, but that's not why he was there. Wolfowitz was good at finding corruption in countries looking for structural adjustments, but not so much in Iraq, where corruption was widespread. The Iraq Development Fund, handled by the World Bank, was where Halliburton, KBR, et al. got their funding. So, if Halliburton dragged it's feet on repairing oil meters, it was able to raise its contract price while billions of dollars in oil was disappearing.

But it's easier to dismiss people as conspiracy theorists rather than learn the strategy. And the conspirators know this. It makes their job easier.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Agents provocateur

"But it's easier to dismiss people as conspiracy theorists rather than learn the strategy. And the conspirators know this. It makes their job easier." -- OnyxCollie

It's ironic, but there may well be a conspiracy against conspiracy theorists.

Just as OnyxCollie suggests, the knee-jerk tendency to dismiss conspiracy theorists works wonderfully in favor of conspirators.

It's a distressing sort of brainwashing where the washees ultimately become the next generation of washers.

It's quite similar to agents provocateur who go into a nonviolent group and foment violence. The AP may throw the first punch but unless the rest of the group is exceedingly well disciplined, many of the next punches often come from legitimate members of that group.

[Echo In Light]

25. Spot on post, OnyxCollie

:thumbsup:

[centristgrandpa]

19. Seriously...

One event in my lifetime has all the elements of conspiracy, the assassination of JFK. I can't off hand think of another case...

[RufusTFirefly]

20. MLK?

Most people's failure to identify conspiracies is influenced by what Larry Beinhart calls Fog Facts. This is the information that has been reported and that journalists know but that most people have forgotten or are unaware of.

There's legitimate, documented information concluding that Martin Luther King's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. In fact, the transcripts are posted on the Web site of the King Center.

[omega minimo]

26. how comforting for all the Alex Keatons of the world. Now they don't even have to ask questions

"To the degree that conspiracism ignores the real centers of power in our society in favor an image of a murky globalist cabal, it doesn't do much to advance our understanding of the world in which we live, and that is itself a major reason not to take the lion's share of these theories seriously."


That is really stupid circular logic, another way of saying that none of us really want to think about those unseen levels... so much nicer not to......

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. I am curious...

why the need to repost such tripe?

[progressoid]

33. Sorry, I din't know it had already been posted.

I do try to avoid dupe posts.

[alarimer]

32. This is 100% correct.

Conspiracy theories like the North American Union are complete bunk. There are very real concerns about expanding NAFTA and (especially labor and environmental standards) and other such agreements. These conspiracy theories detract from real concerns and make a laughingstock of all of those with those very real concerns.

Regarding the 9/11 conspiracies-

Most of the truthers are completely ignorant of science, especially physics. And they do the rest of us a real disservice in that, again, they detract from some very real concerns regarding government and its policies.

[baldguy]

34. Given all these reasons - How does the official 9/11 conspiracy theory differ from all the others?

[BeFree]

37. Joshua is an asshole

He claims there is no conspiracy of some shadowy global group when it is evident all around us that there are global groups working to control everything they can.

OPEC is but one example.

Joshua has drunk so much kool-aid he needs to do 6 months in detox.

[progressoid]

38. OPEC?

Shadowy? :shrug:

[SidDithers]

39. Well, apart from this really spiffy web site...

http://www.opec.org/home/

where they webcast and podcast their press conferences, detail their members, publicize their meetings, and discuss their planning.

You don't get much more shadowy than that. :hi:

Sid

[progressoid]

40. Clearly that's all just a facade.

And oil production is a cover for their real nefarious plan. :eyes: