BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:29 PM

I think it would be better to say "conspiracy hypothesis" than "theory." A theory has to have a LOT of solid evidence behind it before it moves from a hypothesis. And a theory needs absolute proof before it becomes a Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: john f weldon
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:30 PM

Here's an idea for a good New year's game, which I've never actually played. Get together a bunch of folks on New year's Eve and each one writes down hisorher 10 top conspiracy theories. Each one seals the list in an envelope with (say) five bucks. The envelopes are put in a bag, which is not opened till next New Years. The one with the best (most highly confirmed, especially if unlikely) list... ...wins the pot.

Hint: Leprechauns are a bad bet. CIA, pretty safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:31 PM

...it seems very likely that Bhutto's death was due to a conspiracy - but not definitely

I can't conceive how it could have been done by a lone assassin, which would be the only alternative.

By "shoddy thinking" I meant using a label like "conspiracy theory" as a way of avoiding examining a theory before ruling it out.

There are many reasons why a particular theory about some event may be judged implausible. However the fact that it may rest on an assumption that important public figures may be ready to lie or to act illegally is not in itself in the least bit implausible.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:34 PM

Ron, I don't think it's just Mudcatters. It may be that they question information that is generally taken for granted more than others which in my estimation is a good thing.

I hear "conspiracy theories" about "terror" coming out of the White House and other
like-minded politicos with their agendas that eclipse any that are here on Mudcat.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: freightdawg
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:39 PM

It seems to me that there is a big difference between an "alternative theory" to explain an event, and a "conspiracy theory" which involves layers and layers of complicated collusion and mutual protection. For instance, most of the "fruitcake" theories on the JFK assassination involve so many layers of informants, actors, protecters and cover men that it would be impossible to create, let alone actually carry out.

Thus, to say there was a second shooter working along side Oswald is difficult to believe (Oswald was a notorious loner) but at least plausible, but then to include Johnson, the CIA, the Secret Service, the KGB and maybe Rush Limbaugh as well is just nuts.

Much of what creates conspiracy theories is the modern antipathy to accepting small rogue actors as actually being able to accomplish something. It just bothers us that a single man could shoot and kill the most powerful man in the world, and some would say the most popular US president. Therefore, since in our common knowledge bank, it is impossible for a psycho loner to pull of such a great feat, there must be a "conspiracy" behind it. Hence, since it is impossible for a cell of Islamic terrorists to bring down the World Trade Center (despite having video proof of what actually happened) we cook up all kinds of nefarious plots of having the buildings wired with explosives and once again the FBI, the CIA, the entire political administration (including leading Democrats) and a few foreign countries all complicit in the plot. Oh, and as for those videos, we all know how easy it is to make it look like a 767 actually flew into the buildings, when in reality they were miles away.

Conspiracy theorists are not condemned by "head in the sand" commentators. They are condemned by their own bizarre and often laughable suggestions.

Just call me "head in the sand"

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: folk1e
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:43 PM

You may scoff, but there is a fondue conspiracy!!!
One of the UK's senior Navy personell narrowly escaped with his life!

Be WARNED there will be no return to normality if you choose to follow the link posted!

You have been WARNED!!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7162777.stm


Told you

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 01:12 PM

Hi Freight Dawg,

"It seems to me that there is a big difference between an "alternative theory" to explain an event, and a "conspiracy theory"

How do you sort out the difference?

"Thus, to say there was a second shooter working along side Oswald is difficult to believe (Oswald was a notorious loner) but at least plausible, but then to include Johnson, the CIA, the Secret Service, the KGB and maybe Rush Limbaugh as well is just nuts."

I strongly suggest that you read "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann. They maintain quite credibly that the JFK assassination was a mafia hit job involving the CIA who enlisted mob figures to go after Castro. Read that book first and then we can talk about what's just "nuts".


"Much of what creates conspiracy theories is the modern antipathy to accepting small rogue actors as actually being able to accomplish something."

I think that the real antipathy is about simplistic or "white-washed" answers that
need to be more fully investigated. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".


" It just bothers us that a single man could shoot and kill the most powerful man in the world, and some would say the most popular US president. Therefore, since in our common knowledge bank, it is impossible for a psycho loner to pull of such a great feat, there must be a "conspiracy" behind it."

In the case of Mahatma Ghandi, the assassin, Godse was brought to justice through eyewitnesses and extensive inquiry. He was a powerful figure brought down by a lone assassin.

" Hence, since it is impossible for a cell of Islamic terrorists to bring down the World Trade Center"

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the criminals were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
There are questions about their identity, however, that have not been answered fully.

" (despite having video proof of what actually happened)"

We do not have complete video proof of all of the extenuating events.

"we cook up all kinds of nefarious plots of having the buildings wired with explosives and once again the FBI, the CIA, the entire political administration (including leading Democrats) and a few foreign countries all complicit in the plot."

The reason people attempt to supply answers is that not enough legitimate information has been given surrounding this even because there are those with a political agenda such as Guiliani who don't want all the facts shown.

" Oh, and as for those videos, we all know how easy it is to make it look like a 767 actually flew into the buildings, when in reality they were miles away."

The Towers were photographed showing the planes flying into the buildings. The question is how much damage did they do? That has not been fully answered by legitimate inquiries. The 911 Commission report was a white-wash.

"Conspiracy theorists are not condemned by "head in the sand" commentators. They are condemned by their own bizarre and often laughable suggestions."

Conspiracy theorists are condemned by their labels given by people who are complacent with the answers they get from media, the White House and Congress.

One person's conspiracy theory might be another's truth. We will really never know the
complete facts behind 911 until time has elapsed and credible studies have been done.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 01:12 PM

freightdawg - Jack Ruby shooting Oswald really put legs under the JFK theories.
                              And there was more than one 9/11 hijacker, so that entire enterprize becomes a conspiracy right out of the gate.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 01:32 PM

Consporacy theories arise and flourish, imnvho, for several reasons.

1. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if there is insufficient or no info., conspiracies rush in to fill. Part of the human need for gestalts, complete patterns or wholes.

2. There are innumerable reasons for people not to tell it all - politics, money, power etc.

3. if you are of a certain cast of mind, then the idea that a cock-up might be the answer appears impossible/unlikely.

4. If you were brought up surrounded by mystery, or no explanation, or inexplicable behaviour or suspicion et cetera, then you will see the world in the way, as hiding the truth, and you'll be some sort of cynic. (You might not even trust yourself :-)   )


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: john f weldon
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 03:08 PM

One major cause of conspiracy theories is conspirators.
Especially the ones who keep acting in an openly suspicious fashion.
The cooler ones manage to conspire without getting theorized!

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 03:10 PM

As for the 9/11 Commission being a "whitewash," remember that they asked for and were denied access to a lot of information. I think they did pretty well with the information they could collect.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 03:33 PM

I think freightdawg has it right. Conspiracy theories require layers and collusion. I would say every one of the theories on my list meet these criteria. What's interesting to me is that at least some of them--and others--seem to be uncritically accepted by many Mudcatters. And in fact to ask for exact confirmation of them--in the form of objective evidence-- (i.e. not from sympathetic blogs)-- seems to be bad form.

However, be that as it may, I again say: If anybody believes that any of the theories cited in my list are facts, not theories, what is the conclusive proof?

And back to the original question: why are these theories--and others--so popular on Mudcat?

If it's anti-Bush sentiment--and thus any theory which implicates the US government condemns Bush yet again--that's certainly reasonable. I yield to no man in loathing of Bush and his works--especially the Iraq war, for which, as I've said before, he belongs in the circle of Hell next to the Austrian corporal, who also started unnecessary wars, by choice, and based on false premises. For the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign there is, of course, plenty of evidence, to say the least.

But I still require actual evidence before accepting any theory. And sometimes it seems I'm in a distinct minority in this.

So why do so many on Mudcat seem to accept (some of ) of these theories--and others--as gospel, not even trying to exercise their critical faculties in exploring contradictory evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:02 PM

Just another thought about why you might find more folks here in Mudville questioing the validity of the stories that many times come from the government is the fact that this *is* a folk musicans website...

Folk musicans are all about stories and observations... That is what we do... If we didn't we probably wouldn't have any interst in being folk musicans... I think the two do kinda go hand in hand aso to that extent I do agree somewaht with Ron.. I just don't like the dismissiveness of the term "conepiracy theories"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:13 PM

Bobert--

You're right, "conspiracy theory" is of course a loaded term. But they are conspiracies, and theories about them. We could take the suggestion to say "conspiracy hypothesis" but that means the evidence is even weaker than in a theory.

All on my list have other explanations than those proposed by the adherents of each conspiracy theory--but it seems believers in these theories don't even try to look for information contradicting their view. Yet this is what Bush does--refuses to even look at adverse information--and we slash him to ribbons--rightly--for doing so. So we should not do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 05:24 PM

By the way, Skivee, thanks for that blast from "The Prisoner". That's one of my all-time favorite quotes--and Patrick McGoohan was in 2 of the best shows ever on TV. I always thought Secret Agent Man (in the US)--expansion of the UK's Danger Man?--was probably the best depiction of espionage ever. Particularly since sometimes after several people were killed, McGoohan barely escaping, he found that he'd been chasing down a blind alley--all the deaths and danger were for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 06:44 PM

Of course, Ron, I'm sure that you are fully aware that the use of "conspiracy hypothesis" would undermine years and years or PR propaganda around the term "conspiracy theories" and those who conviently use the term to dismiss folks with whom they disagree would have to go back to Square 1....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: freightdawg
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 06:53 PM

Hey Riginslinger,

As I mentioned, an alternative theory is one that proposes other facts or scenarios to explain an event. A conspiracy theory involves an alternative theory (assuming the primary explanation does not also involve a conspiracy) but one that demands multiple layers of actors, some of whom don't even know about the existance of others, and a great deal of collusion and cover-up. The problem is that in any conspiracy there are always leaks and the larger the assumed conspiracy the requirement for perfect secrecy becomes untenable.

Hence, I cannot give credence to the JFK assassination conspiracy because (I admit in most, but not all) theories there are just too many layers.

True, in the 9/11 attacks there were multiple players, some of whom did not even know about the existance of others. This is an example of a well constructed conspiracy - assuming you stop with the hijackers and their superiors, up to and including Bin Laden. Where the whole thing fades into lunacy is when the conspirators are said to include key members of the adminstration, or the FBI, or the CIA, or other branch of the US military.

And, by the way, to prove a "link" between criminals and someone else does not, by itself, prove a "causal link." Therefore to say the CIA may have had indications an attack was imminent does not make them a co-conspirator. To be a conspirator involves not only connection, but knowledge and active participation.

I have seen and read explanations of how the towers collapsed. They were prepared by different people, with all of the facts available to be evaluated by the public. I am perfectly satisfied that the mass of the planes times the speed of impact combined with the tons of aviation fuel was more than enough to cause the buildings to collapse. These plans were well planned, and much to our great sorrow, impeccably executed.

As for JFK, yes, Ruby shooting Oswald creates a whole new issue. But aside from a lot of suggestions and proposals, there has never been any qualified evidence that a second shooter was involved. How connected with the mafia was Oswald? I don't think a well planned hit would involve a flake like Oswald. Too much would then depend on his murder. ABC aired a great story on this assassination and how each and every question regarding Oswald has a perfectly acceptable answer. Acceptable, that is, unless you demand that he was killed as a part of a larger conspiracy.

If JFK was taken out by a conspiracy, it has to be said that it is the perfect conspiracy, and, being the perfect conspiracy, it will never be proven.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 08:07 PM

Freightdawg - Some people benefited hugely by both the JFK assassination and the World Trade Center attack. It wouldn't seem out of line to inquire as to their possible involvement.

                         But getting back to Ron's list, there is this:

"1) Religion is the root of all evil."
                      It seems like it is to me, but that's opinion. I don't see how this qualifies as a conspiracy.

"2) The 2004 election was stolen by Diebold (or Diebold machines, manipulated by Bush partisans). I have no idea how much validity this has--it sure hasn't been proven, and there are far more plausible reasons for the outcome."
                      Okay, but why do we need them. We'd been conductin elections for 200 years before Diebold came along. Why throw in an extra unknown and further undermine public confidence.


"4) The usual leftist theories of world domination, usually centering around big money--either Bilderbergs, Wall St, or unnamed nefarious financial interests, who of course are all in collusion--there is no competition between them."
                         It's absolutely laughable to hear right wing politician talk about a "free market" economy. Markets are manipulated to their own advantage every day by players who control huge gobs of amalgamated capitol. To think markets run on a free flow of ideas and unfettered trading is nothing short of stupid. Somebody believing that and his money would be soon parted.


"7) The US is in danger of being taken over by (this time) Spanish-speaking hordes, who will give California New Mexico, Arizona, etc. back to Mexico, push many Americans onto unemployment, and relegate English-speakers to a pathetic fringe."
                         There are political organizations out there that advocate this very thing. The Nation of Aztlan is one of them. They might not ever be successful, but everytime a Hispanic politician gets elected, or one of their kind gets appointed to a professorship at a university they go on line and inform their constituency, "We are this much closer."
                         Maybe they should be ignored, but they don't seem to think so and apparently the people they champion don't either. At least, they never seem to object.


                         That's about all I can comment on in one session.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: GUEST,A Concerned bystander
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 08:40 PM

And there is a Conspiracy of the clones to stop catters saying anything as well . Be VERY Careful !

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:35 AM

Actually, to go to the site now, it faster to type in "La Voz de Aztlan." There are other competing web-sites now by the ADL and others.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 02:19 PM

Rig--

"one of their kind"--that sounds perilously close to racism. We don't need that.

You really think religion--and not abuse of religion-- is the root of all evil? Have you not read anything anybody else has said on the topic?

As for why that's a conspiracy hypothesis (weaker than theory, thus worthy of less respect)--try the Opus Dei garbage. Do you seriously think Opus Dei would have had people killed to prevent an allegation that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers (that's who it was, wasn't it?) from being made public?

And so on.

The world capitalist conspiracy, another gem. Of course Citibank and Bank of America never compete against each other, not to mention the Dresdner Bank, a host of Japanese banks, etc.

Sure there's too much power concentrated in too few hands--Macroslop, for instance. But even there there are countervailing forces. The EC just reined in Macroslop--which had been fined a record amount--and will force them to change the way they do business in Europe--and thus the world.

People who believe in the 6 conspiracies I've listed need to read more.

And start thinking.

I'm just surprised that Mudcatters--a highly educated bunch--seem to have so many who buy conspiracy theories or conspiracy hypotheses.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 02:27 PM

Actually I listed 7 conspiracies. None remotely close to proven.

And there are more.

Another brilliant one was the allegation that Rushdie was knighted by the British purposely to inflame Moslems.

How anybody with any sense would swallow that, I don't know.

And, as I said, Mudcatters are probably more highly educated than the general population. So why do so many--at least, of the vocal ones-- buy such tripe?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 02:51 PM

Ron - If the phrase "one of their kind" sounds racist to you, you should check out the La Voz de Aztlan web-site. That's the way they refer to themselves. It's like the organization La Raza, that's what they named themselves, I had nothing to do with that either.

                   Yes. I think religion is the root of all evil. I've read other posters and don't agree with all of them. Why would that be unusual. It doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory, though, because there is no conspiracy. For another view on the relationship between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, I would recommend the book, "The Last Temptation of Christ."

RE: Opus Dei: I tried to read "The Da Vinci Code," but found the prose style so incredibly boring, I couldn't force myself to go on through with it.

                   Of course big international banking firms compete with each other, in a gentlemanly manner. It's just the people on the bottom that they all work so hard together against, for the purpose of keeping them repressed.


                  My version of the Salman Rushdie conspiracy is that Rushdie and his publisher conspired to intensify the reality of the threat, whether real or imagined, in order to boost the sales of "Satanic Verses."

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: GUEST,Non aligned leftie
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 02:56 PM

Erm, 'religion is the root of all evil' is not a conspiracy theory. It's an opinion. On the other hand, 'Opus Dei systematically murders its political opponents' (with convoluted points made to attempt to prove it) is a conspiracy theory. But then, 'Opus Dei is a nutty, slightly secretive rightwing Catholic organisation' is back in the realm of opinion.

To dismiss opinion as conspiracy is cheap politicking.

And to deny people the right to have anything but positive opinions of religion is oppressive. If you want to allow your life to be dictated by an imaginary friend, that's absolutely fine and is your right. To then try to impose such a medieval worldview on others whether they want it or not (an most monotheists are seemingly compelled to do) simply isn't on. Religion may not be the root of all evil but neither is it the root of all good, and it can't half make you gag when it's repeatedly rammed down your throat.

For a secular society where all religious and non religious views are tolerated and given equal status (i.e. no more presidential fricking prayer breakfasts and invoking Jesus at election time!)!

NAL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 10:40 PM

But Jesus told me to! Just last night, when we were having a beer, he said, "Sure, go ahead and use me as a recommendation. Everyone else does."

1. "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a NOVEL, a work of FICTION, or to put it another way, LIES TOLD FOR MONEY. So is "The Da Vinci Code." So are a lot of other books cited by folks looking for a conspiracy.

2. If you would look at NONFICTION, try "The Nag Hammadi Library" -- a recent translation of the works found there. But this will take a lot of work, using nonfiction, and very little of it is as exciting as a novel.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 10:47 PM

Interesting that you, non-aligned lefty, agree that religion is not the root of all evil. As for its being the root of all good, nobody claimed that.

As far as Opus Dei murdering its political opponents, that's not even a conspiracy theory, that's absurd slander. But for those who believe in the crackpot notion that religion is the root of all evil, the conspiracy would be that religious groups conspire together to stay in power.

The obvious answer to that allegation is that not only do they fight constantly with each other, but on the rare chances they get what they supposedly want: one of their own in power, they are bitterly disappointed in the result. Example: anybody who thinks the "Religious Right" in the US is happy with what Bush has done for them is hopelessly out of touch. (They think he has let them down badly.)

Of course being out of touch is very appropriate for somebody who believes in any of the conspiracies I have listed--which is why I am surprised that so many Mudcatters, who are educated and in general in touch with reality, believe in these conspiracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:06 PM

Who you callin' "in touch with reality?"

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:13 PM

"...which is why I am surprised that so many Mudcatters, who are educated and in general in touch with reality, believe in these conspiracies."

                   Ron - Get a grip on reality, very few people here or other places believe in the proposals that you are putting forth as "Consipiracy Theories." I think you've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.


      "...anybody who thinks the "Religious Right" in the US is happy with what Bush has done for them is hopelessly out of touch."

                   But you're right there. By now most of them have come to realize they'd been better off with Howard Dean.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:27 PM

"'1. "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a NOVEL, a work of FICTION, or to put it another way, LIES TOLD FOR MONEY. So is "The Da Vinci Code."'

                      In all honesty, I don't think Nikos Kazantzakis wrot "The Last Temptation of Christ" for money. I think it was really an heart felt portrayal of what he felt his Eastern Orthodox religion to be.
                      The church didn't agree, obviously.

                      "The Da Vinci Code," I would agree, was written for money, as is most pop-fiction you find on the shelves of supermarkets.

                      I would like to make the case, however, that there is honest serious fiction out there.

                      There is also a whole lot of garbage sold under the auspices of Non-Fiction. I'm not familiar with this: "The Nag Hammadi Library" I'm sure it is informative material, but much of the popular non-fiction is more misleading than fiction because the reader is lead to believe that it is true, when in fact much of the time it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: 282RA
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:42 PM

Got into a heated argument on some other forum over the Philadelphia Experiment. The trouble is, all I was doing was asking a few questions about this article that was posted. He kept insisting the ship exhibited "dielectric breakdown" near the surface of the water before turning invisible and that he had a photo from a physics text that showed exactly that. I asked him if he had talked to anybody involved with whatever this photo was showing--where was this facility and who was conducting this experiment that was photographed? I asked him if he had any official documents from the Navy stating anything about invisibility experiments. Instead of answering no, he started getting really wound up. "I'm just asking a few questions," I said. But he began to get really sarcastic. For a guy whose article made him sound like a scientific genius, he certainly had a very immature attitude about fielding questions ANY scientist or ordinary skeptic would have asked. If he's going to get like that with me, how's he going to pass a peer review? At least the mods slapped him down and he left the forum and never came back. Touchy guy.

I also casted doubt on the validity of alien abduction by asking one really simple question: "If aliens are real and are having this much contact with us, why don't we have anymore proof of their reality than we did 30 years ago when we first began to hear about Greys?" That didn't win friends either.

When you post about such topics, you tend to get negative responses depending on who the audience is. For example, to be skeptical in front of believers invites negative responses and to be puzzled by events in front of skeptics invites negative response. I posted about things like the Ica stones and exactly when and how civilization began and garnered immediate negativity here. I didn't bother to post it in this other forum because I knew the reaction would be unquestioning praise. For the same reason, I didn't post my criticisms of alien abduction here simply because it would be preaching to the converted.

The world seems to be divided into believers--people who unquestioningly believe anything no matter how outrageous it is and who literally turn the would "skeptic" into an insult and attach a stigma of loathsomeness to it; and disbelievers--people who concour with a general statement that we don't know everything about our history but who will not give an inch with any particularly example but will fight tooth & nail to maintain that our knowledge in that area is complete and anybody who disagrees is obviously an "idiot."

Believers believe from a deep-seated need to believe and disbelievers disbelieve from a deep-seated need to disbelieve. They are otherwise the same type of person--mirror images.

Neither one can accept that they don't possess anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The other side is, of course, totally wrong about everything. Their egos won't let the accept that it is far more likely that the truth lies somewhere between them and probably will always be somewhat elusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:48 PM

Allow me to split hairs regarding the word conspiracy with some of my notes...


Conspiracy: from the latin meaning 'with mutual breath' or to 'breathe together'.

When the legend becomes bigger than the fact, we tend to print and repeat the legend. We conspire to misinform only when we know the actual truth. ..as in telling kids that Santa is real. There are cases in which we could become unwitting dupes of a conspiracy but that is due to ingnorance which can be alleviated with education.

TRrue Conspiracy is a living argreement of a certain ideas between certain members, and not merely a term for a far fetched idea.

When facts need to be supressed or ridiculed in a public debate/argument, the label of conspiracy theory immediately plunges a truth into the pot of dought. To support a misrepresentation of truth would be the conspiracy.

imho we tend to misuse the term quite freely.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 11:54 PM

282RA - I would think most people would accept that the "truth" is someplace in the middle of the situation you describe above. But there are folks who swear by alien abduction, and others who believe in ancient tales that are probably rooted in fact but have lost any connection with provable substance, at least as we know it. Some of us look at those tales with questionable anxiety.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM

When a one in 7 billion "thing" occurs we tend to test it against the 6.9999999 billion other times when the thing did not occur.

Then we likely call it a conpiracy or tin foil hat notion for its oddity.

For example almost all the alien abduction reports are due to a failure to consciously wake up in the normal manner.
This should not detract from the possibility of an exceedingly rare event of a close encounter. Only the availability of evidence/proof should be imposed.

As of now the only proof is that of a hypnogogic abnormality or sleep paralysis phenomena creating the alien abcuction experience.

Travis Walton's experience seems to fall outside even these parameters yet proof is still lacking for an extraordinary explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: 282RA
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 01:43 AM

We discussed Travis Walton. I brought up that he failed a polygraph paid for by the National Enquirer who then refused to purchase his story. How bad is it when National Enquirer shows you to the door?

>>282RA - I would think most people would accept that the "truth" is someplace in the middle of the situation you describe above. But there are folks who swear by alien abduction, and others who believe in ancient tales that are probably rooted in fact but have lost any connection with provable substance, at least as we know it. Some of us look at those tales with questionable anxiety.<<

I understand that. But there are definitely strange things from our past that we don't really have good explanations for and the disbelievers cannot even bring themselves to admit "I don't really have a good explanation for that." They always have an answer even if they have to insult your intelligence to do it. In the case of depictions of pre-Columbian elephants in America in native art throughout the New World I actually met one guy who said that one the representations was not an elephant but a some other animal with large ears and a trunk. I asked what animal that would be and didn't get a response.

When discussing the Ica stones in another forum, I asked a poster who pronounced them to be unequivocal fakes how he knew that when the stones were never actually proven fake anymore than they've been proven real. And that if they were fake then just explain how the hoaxsters made 15,000 separate pieces of evidence. It's the only case I know where that has such an incredible preponderance of evidence and is pronounced fake. So just explain how it was faked. This was the response I got:

"ITS JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE GUY!!!!"

Really now! I guess yelling that it's common sense is proof or something although I am admittedly vague on how that works.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: GUEST,Non aligned leftie
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 05:31 AM

QUOTE:Interesting that you, non-aligned lefty, agree that religion is not the root of all evil.

Not that interesting, though. If you believe that religion is a human construct and that (wo)man created god in his/her own image, it follows that just as people are capable of committing both the most appalling atrocities and the most humbling acts of generosity, equally they're capable of doing either in the name of religion (or any other construct you wish to substitute). This pleasingly simplistic concept is made more complicated by things like heirarchy, authority, money and power dynamics, but I believe it essentially holds true.

There are people with religious views on the left (not everyone is a dyed in the wool Trotskyite!). By and large they are deeply embarrassed by the religious right.

Personally I don't believe in God. But then, I also don't believe in alien abduction, the Loch Ness monster, the New World Order and so on and so forth. I also don't believe conspiracy theories are the preserve of the left - they are equally, if not more likely, to come from the far right (plenty of them seem to be about various imagined misdeeds of Jewish people). I do think they tend to come from a position of percieved powerlessness in the face of a seemingly overwhelmingly powerful 'system', though. Participation in trying to change the world for the better is usually an effective antidote to conspiracyitis.

NAL

Subject: New World Order ????????????
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 09:09 AM

I can not change a belief. But I can quote facts and introduce a language that may allow a person to learn something new about a pre existing idea.

The term 'New World Order' is the gift of the banking and corporation funded think tanks. The exact term New World Order was first used in public addresses by President GHW Hush.

What is it really?
Here it is straight up with no satire or spoon feeding...
It is a push to privatize everything along the lines of an extreme fundamentalist Capitalism.

You might ask Everything?

Beyond private property and private corporations I point out:
private armies, private police, private legislaters, Privatized National Parks, privatized health care, privatized social security schemes...et cetera.

Putting these corporate ideas of ultimate privatization into play via banking systems like the New World Bank is often called Globalization.

Conentrating wealth in a handful of banks and corporation which are in turn owned by even fewer families is effective in removing the last remaing vestigal powers of labor unions and Law (laws like zoning, tax and numerous consumer safety regulations)
To enhance Globalization the social safety nets of FDR are called socialist and very bad. National health care is communist and very bad. Social Security is broke and very bad.

With legislators becoming essentially privatized by corporate contributions the only stumbling block to most Globalization (formerly called New World Order) tactics are the courts.

Perhaps you don't see as I do how the courts are under attack by Globalists.
Perhaps you don't see that threats of; terror, natural disaster, disease and impending doom actually changes the behavior of people to allow freedom itself to be traded away for huge sudden sweeping security laws and economic slavery, al in the sheeps clothing of security.

Yet let me assure you that the old term 'New World Order' (which did not play well since it sounds too close to the truth) is alive and well in Globalization.


A preconceived notion as to what New World Order/Globalization meant may be far from what it is. It is simply an extreme form of capitalism which relies on anti democratic and powerful media propoganda. The weakening of goverment agenices and the strengthening of private corporate agencies.

Thats why there was a private beefed up Blackwater and Walmart response to Katrina while FEMA had its guts brains and balls removed by the Globalist administration. The only goverment agency to respond to Katina immediately was the Coast Guard and the Candain Mounties.

People argue here all the time about various aspects of globallization as if its a red or blue issue or a democratic vs. fascist issue. The arguemnts can be anything we want it to be but Globalization ie NWO is swallowing us all as we bicker.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 09:20 AM

Who has the most to gain from spreading the rumor that New World Order/Globalization is a conspiracy theory? The Globalists.

Their motivation: all the money and property in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 09:22 AM

The Nag Hammadi library was discovered in 1945 and the age of the items has often been validated. They are among some of the earliest writings of the Gnostics and the Christian Church and include "The Gospel of Thomas," which many biblical scholars consider the "Fifth Gospel."

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 09:30 AM

Jesuits have a great respect for the gospel of Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: GUEST,Non aligned leftie
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 10:01 AM

Erm, I think the term New World Order has been around since the start of the twentieth century. For most of its history it has been associated with the far right and anti-semites and its main function has been another way to take a pop at Jewish people (c/f the Illuminati, etc).

You are describing an extreme form of neo-liberal ecomonic theory. You don't need to dress it up with esoteric bullshit about the NWO. You just need to participate in and support local and international struggles against it - and there are plenty, and the participants are usually too busy trying to make their world into a better place to worry about conspiracy theories.

I reckon.

NAL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 10:53 AM

That would seem to indicate that the New World Order and the Neo-Cons are at odds with each other. When you consider Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were among the driving forces that brought the US to invade Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 11:41 AM

Ring...

I do not think that the New World Order and the Neo-Cons are at odds with each other. They are but an octopus'arm of Globalization and not as nationalist as it may seem. Rumsfeld, Rice, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Dan Quale and the whole neo con posse may find it hard to hang together at times but the alternative would be hanging seperately.

lefty

Yes neoconism is a corporate fascism in the waging of war as well as in the destruction of social spending. As I said before you can call it liberal conservative rediish blue or bluish red but it is capitalism in its worst extremes.

China is the most succesful capitalist country right now with many of the extreme population controls that Globalists practically worship. Damn the enviorment full unsustainability ahead.

Peru just had their water war because Bechtel Corp bought all the water fithts in the country. The corporation and the goverment worked hand in hand as the same entity and passed laws that fined and imprisoned people for "STEALING" rainwater.
Many died in the protest but Bechtel still sells the water albeit with less stringent penalties for stealing rainwater.

Some Might say that Hitler proposed the New World Order. Hell rich control freaks have always had some empire vision of one sort or another, its just that now it is suceeding like ganbusters. Which in my opinion is anthma for lod notions of liberty justice and freedom.
Confessions of a economic Hitman and Naomi Klien's new book Shock Capitalism help crystalize the Globalist conspiracy in clear and uncertain terms.

Yes the NWO WB or the big G can be defeated but I fear that the enviorment will defeat us all before that day will come.
In this case those who will inherit the Earth with super bunkers and self sustaining islands of civilization will not be the meek.
They will be the multi trillionaires. A timetable of total diaster of 50 to 100 years is possible.

The fire season is 78 days longer this year than it was 10 years ago.
The area of fire devastation is up 400% from 10 years ago.
Fresh water is in peril. 10 million birds have vanished from N America alne recently. That is one big canary in our mine to perish.

Heck even global warming was a popular conspiracy theory 7 years ago.

Only Administration and media efforts kept the masses in the dark, despite our lieing eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 03:29 PM

I remember when a random selection of organizers were put on trial for "conspiracy" in response to the huge protest demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968.

The government lost the case, correctly enough, because the defendants ~ a very loosely organized bunch of Christian pacifists, secular policial radicals, wild-eyed "Yippie" hedonists, and others ~ couldn't be proven to have collaborated on much of anything beyond a shared opposition to politics-as-usual in general and the war in Vietnam in particular. (It also turned out that some of the most visible and incendiary lawbreaking, notably a widely televised flag-buring in Grant Park, was actually the work of undercover agents provacateurs in the employ of government agencies.)

While there was in fact no conscious, well-planned "conspirancy" of the kind that many on the right were so anxious to discover and to prove, it was true enough that the disorganized, rag-tag group of protesters DID share a common purpose, and WERE "conspiring," but only in the most informal sense of the word. They shared a common sense of outrage and a common opinion of the status quo, even though the did NOT share many basic values and in fact held a wide spectrum of different opinions about how to bring about change.

The word "conspire" comes from the Latin, meaning literally "to breathe together." Those protest leaders in Chicago forty years ago did indeed "breathe together" insofar as they shared a common opinion about at least one critical issue and the need for masses of folks sharing that same opinion to express themselves in a mass protest. Any more delinite or more sinister collaboration on their parts could not be proved because it simply didn't exist.

I think the same dynamic, or somthing like it, is part of the unknown scenario behind most "conspiracy theories." For example, in the case of the JFK assassination, I find it impossible to believe that the CIA or FBI or any government agency ever actually made an official decision to kill the President, but I do find it entirely plausible that a few likeminded right-wing nuts might very well have found themselves, and found each other, in relatively powerful positions from which they would be able to act in concert. Nothing official, nothing on paper, and therefore nothing to go down in history, nothing for us to ever learn now that they're as dead and gone as the man they were so anxious to kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: 282RA
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 05:15 PM

>>The term 'New World Order' is the gift of the banking and corporation funded think tanks. The exact term New World Order was first used in public addresses by President GHW Hush.<<

Huh? The term has been around way before Bush 1 used it. Nor was he talking about the NWO that conspiracists can't shut up about. The term even appears in Latin on your dollar bill. Novus Ordo Seclorum essentially means New World Order.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 03:53 PM

Rig--

Just how out of touch are you?

"Religious Right" would be happier with Dean? As a sage once said, get a grip on reality.




Very few believe in these conspiracies?

Well..

1) Quite a few seem to still believe the 2004 election was stolen by Diebold or Bush partisans acting through Diebold.

2) Somebody you know well was recently trying to ascribe all evil in the world to religion.

3)   The same person was talking about La Voz de Aztlan. I wonder what the point of that was.


And the others on my list also have their adherents.


It may be that few actually do believe in these conspiracies. But for some reason they tend to be some of the more vocal posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 03:57 PM

"Religious Right" would be happier with Dean? Only insofar as the Sierra Club is happier with Bush than with Kerry: a devil-figure is always useful in fundraising.

And, somehow, I don't think that's what you were driving at.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM

Ron - You're right, most of them would have been better off with Dean, but they probably would not have realized it.


   "3)   The same person was talking about La Voz de Aztlan. I wonder what the point of that was."


             Ron - I'm not sure what you're driving at here. La Voz de Aztlan could be described as a group of conspirators, but they don't often post messages at Mudcat. I merely mentioned them by way of pointing out that there were, in fact, folks out there with that point of view.



             And as far as assigning all evil to the heartbreak of religion, there's no conspiracy to it. It's simply a statement of opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 10:55 PM

Rig--


"...simply a statement of opinion"--gee, I suppose that means the advocating of stamping out religion was just a passing fancy. I'm sure the "heretics' felt the same way about similar statements by the Inquisition.

And "Aztlan"--"folks out there". Right, anything you say. So you did not by any means want to imply that you place any credence in the idea that a group with any clout would seek to give California, New Mexico, etc. back to Mexico, you just mentioned them as a public service in keeping Mudcatters informed.   OK, I'll buy your denial. Thousands wouldn't--especially based on other, rather intemperate statements you've made.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 10:40 AM

Yes, Ron, I think the world would be a much better place if religion would just go away. I'm not going to take any overt action to see that eventuality come to pass, but I think it will some day. I'll continue to vent my thoughts, though, from time to time, as the occasions present themselves.

                   Regarding the group: La Voz de Aztlan, have you visited the site to see what they are about? There are a few articles you might interesting: "Anchor Baby Power," and "Trouble in Gringoland," are just two of them.
                   Also, their views on Judiaism and Israel shed some light on their thinking as well.
                   These are real people with a very straight forward agenda. I didn't make them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 10:58 AM

A recent story from their website:

"LA VOZ DE AZTLAN
Los Angeles, Alta California
December 20, 2007

Lakota Nation secedes from the USA

Tohono O'Odham Nation and 19 others may follow

The Lakota Nation has withdrawn from all treaties with the United States, national leaders said Wednesday. "We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," Indian leader Russell Means told reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy at a Washington news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the US State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

The Lakota Nation includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driver's licenses. Also, living in the new independent and sovereign nation will be tax-free, provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Russell Means said. ..."