BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity

Subject: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:33 PM

Interesting. Conspiracy theories have been and seem to be amazingly popular on Mudcat (below the line, obviously).

Any thoughts as to why? Do Mudcatters (at least many of those who post often) like simple answers to complex political and economic phenomena. It's hard to believe it's just Mudcatters. Maybe it's a function of the Web itself. Maybe it's just the corresponding view on the Left (including the idea that religion is the root of all evil) to the fundamentalism on the Right that believes that all answers to all questions can be found in the Bible, or are God's plan.

Other ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:44 PM

Well, it's MY opinion that perhaps those who start threads like this are secretly controlled by cabals of frustrated musicians who can't get enough really important stuff into their lives because they're trapped into endless nights of singing, playing and learning new songs...etc...but...





no....I can't really guess. ☺
I'll think on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: MMario
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:51 PM

? Many many of the conspiracy theories certainly do *NOT* fit as "simple answers to complex political and economic phenomena"

so that kind of blows that idea out of the water.

In fact, I would say *MOST* conspiracy theories tend to be more convoluted then the actuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:52 PM

"...to the fundamentalism on the Right that believes that all answers to all questions can be found in the Bible,..."


          I have it on reasonably good authority that there are some fundamentalist who think answers can be found in the Bhagavad Gita.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:58 PM

More often than not it's not a matter of whether there was a conspiracy or not, but of what the conspiracy consisted of, and who was involved in it. Pretty well always when the confidential records come out years later it is revealed that the story that the public were told about public events wasn't actually that close to the truth. That's a conspiracy.

Of course some theories about conspiracy are daft, but then the truth is often pretty daft.

I've got a macro-conspiracy theory - it's that somewhere there are government agencies dreaming up and propagating a whole mass of conspiracy theories about everything - the idea being that people get scepitical about such notions, and that makes it easier to get away with
covert activities. The Mudcat is just the kind of place they'd use to play games like that...

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:34 PM

Why here? Because there are forces at work here who allow it simply to show what total and complete shit filled assholes conspiracy theorists actually are.      

It seems to be working too. Through the non-stop and clandestine efforts of the Mudcat Tri-napping Commission we have seen the insanity and downright silliness of a large number of stumblebum dickheads. It is a sinister plot but one which has paid dividends as we have all seen the ludicrous bullshit some people believe and try to sell to others.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: number 6
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:40 PM

If taken too seriously conspiracy theories can be dangerous ... but on the other side they can provide a comical relief in the madness of the world we live in.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:42 PM

Riginslinger:

The Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture; I am not aware of any newsworthy Hindu fundamentalists. It's the Muslim hard cases who concern me the most.

Now, if you had written " I have it on reasonably good authority that there are some fundamentalists who think answers can be found in the Koran," I would have nodded in agreement.

If you have anything of interest to tell us about Hindu fundamentalists, please do so!

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:44 PM

I myself am deathly afraid of Pastafarian Fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: MMario
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:47 PM

The Pastafarian Fundue-mentalists are even worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: number 6
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:47 PM

"I am not aware of any newsworthy Hindu fundamentalists."

The Air India plane bombing in '85 is a case in point of extreme Hindu fundamentalists .... they're just as dangerous as any religeous despots.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:48 PM

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they AREN'T all out to get me...
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: number 6
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:51 PM

Beware of fox packs Duck.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:52 PM

I know some catholics who think there are answers in the Bible.
Are we supposed to be creating NEW conspiracy theories here or just recycling the old ones.
A friend at school many years back complained about having nightmares featuring the munchkins from Oz.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:53 PM

Munchkins were behind the demise of the Tin Man.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: number 6
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:59 PM

It's the Masonic Munchkins (specifically) that were perpetrators.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:03 PM

Well, I for one fine the term "conspiracy theories" demeaning and just a PR stunt by the corportists crooks to keep people in the dark...

Most of what I see as conspiracies (different term) are, IMO, actual conpsiracies...

Like the killings or JFK, RFK and MLK... None of the stories add up and taken as a whole only an animal cracker or folks who has bought into the above noted PR campaign...

Believe it or not, the truth is out there, regardless of what it is dressed up as...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:05 PM

PoppaGator - Here you are! Sorry the post is so long. I've never been able to get the "blue clicky" thing to work.


NEW DELHI - Hindu extremists torched nearly a dozen churches and the home of a Christian leader Thursday, defying a curfew imposed to quell three days of religious violence in eastern India. Christians retaliated by setting fire to several homes belonging to Hindus.

Local police have been unsuccessful in halting the attacks and the federal government announced it was sending in a paramilitary force.

About 19 churches, most of them small mud and thatch buildings, have been razed since violence broke out on Christmas Eve when long-standing tensions between the Hindu majority and the small Christian community erupted over conversions to Christianity.

Hindu groups have long charged Christian missionaries with trying to lure the poor and those who occupy the lowest rungs of Hinduism's complex caste-system away with promises of money and jobs.

On Thursday, a mob of Hindus burned down the house of Radhakant Nayak, a member of India's upper house of parliament and a Christian leader in the area, Nayak told the CNN-IBN news channel.

Also, 11 churches were ransacked and burned in Kandhamal district of Orissa state, the Press Trust of India quoted unnamed police officials as saying.

Superintendent of Police Narsingh Bhol said several prayer houses were ransacked and some were set on fire, but he did not have the exact number.

Meanwhile, in the village of Brahmangaon, a group of Christians burned down several Hindu homes in an apparent retaliation for the attack on churches. Angry Hindus then burned down the village police station, complaining of a lack of protection, a local police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

Bahugrahi Mahapatra, a senior government official in the area confirmed there had been "disturbances" in the village, but could not provide details.

One person has been killed and at least 25 people, belonging to both Hindu and Christian communities, have been arrested for suspected involvement in the violence, Bhol told The Associated Press by phone.

But the arrests and curfew have not stopped the attacks and the federal government said it was sending in a 300-strong paramilitary force.

"We have to get the violence under control," the junior federal home minister, Sriprakash Jaiswal, told reporters.

India is overwhelmingly Hindu but officially secular. Religious minorities, such as Christians, who account for 2.5 percent of the country's 1.1. billion people, and Muslims, who make up 14 percent, often coexist peacefully.

But throughout India's history, the issue of conversions has provoked violence by hard-line Hindus.

Orissa has one of the worst histories of anti-Christian violence. An Australian missionary and his two sons, aged 8 and 10, were burned to death in their car in Orissa following a Bible study class in 1999.

Orissa is the only Indian state that has a law requiring people to obtain police permission before they change their religion. The law was intended to counter missionary work.

There were conflicting reports of what started the violence in the rural district of Kandhamal, about 840 miles southeast of New Delhi. Each side blamed the other.

The Hindu hard-liners said Christians had attempted to attack one of their leaders, who heads an anti-conversion movement.

But the New Delhi-based Catholic Bishops Conference of India said the fighting began when Hindu extremists objected to a show marking Christmas Eve, believing it was designed to encourage conversions.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: bobad
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:08 PM

"The Air India plane bombing in '85 is a case in point of extreme Hindu fundamentalists"

That atrocity was committed by Sikh's which are, AFAIK, distinct from Hindus.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:11 PM

If you believe one of the conspiracy theories then it's not a theory anymore. IT'S A FACT DAMMIT AND IF I JUST SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH MAYBE I CAN GET ALL OF YOU TO BELIEVE IT TOO BECAUSE IT'S A FACT DAMMIT. IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE - JUST CHECK MY SOURCES.....DAMMIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: number 6
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:20 PM

Sihks ... your correct Bobad ... they are a blend of Hindu and Islam (I think) ... oh well, the ones involved in the bombing were extreme despots whatever they were.

Wesley .... sounds like you need a dose of 'happiness' ... you should come up here to Saint John for some chilling out. :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:23 PM

I'm not sure I can trust the evauluation of anyone who would go by the name "Number 6". Can I talk to "Number 1" instead??

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: number 6
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:28 PM

Number 1 .... is busy right now .... Number's 2, 3, 4, 5 are incognito at this time ... so what do you want to talk about Wesley ?? :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:32 PM

I dunno, Wesley - I remember when I was in the (US) army, "6" was the non-encrypted radio code number for the unit commander ("this is Redleg 6"), his jeep was number 6 (eg, HQ-6), and so forth. "1" was the number for the personnel guy and, having been one, I wouldn't trust them at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:38 PM

6 { if that really is your name] - Then this might be a good time for me to go underground myself. The truth is out there......

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:00 PM

Thanks for the info on that Hindu-Christian conflict. I didn't see a date ~ was this recent? (Not that the chronology really matters...the fact that it happened at all is more to the point.)

I've never thought of Hindus as especially bloodthirsty, but back a year or two before I was born, there was certainly plenty of Hindu-vs-Muslim violence involved in the birth of independent India and Pakistan. It certainly stands to reason that neither side could possibly have been totally innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:08 PM

I believe there are many mudcatters who are avidly 'conspiring' to keep music 'Live'...well that's my theory anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Skivee
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:10 PM

From a radio intercept by IMDB security services:


Number 6: Where am I?
Number 2: In the Village.
Number 6: What do you want?
Number 2: We want information.
Number 6: Whose side are you on?
Number 2: That would be telling. We want information... information... information.
Number 6: You won't get it.
Number 2: By hook or by crook, we will.
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM

PappaGator - I looked it up. The Christian vs. Hindu article was on today's Yahoo news page, and it was dated yesterday 12/27/07. It's still going on today.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: MaineDog
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:58 PM

"paranoia strikes deep
into your life it will creep"
--csny

The most dangerous conspiracy is the one you know absolutely nothing about -- obviously, because they have better cover.
--paraphrase of Umberto Eco

it couldnt be my fault, because I am one of the good guys!
Therefore there must be a conspiracy against me.

I don't need to know anything else.

MD

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM

"They are not like us - let's kill them" seems to be pretty universal, unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: michaelr
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 06:21 PM

Anytime anyone with any brains can see that the official explanation doesn't add up (e.g. JFK assassination, 9-11) alternative theories will pop up. Unfortunately, most Americans are too scared and/or lazy to look for truth, and prefer to call those who question the official line of BS "conspiracy nuts".

Personally, I have no patience for the head-in-the-sand crowd, not just because I detest intellectual laziness and cowardice, but also because their attitude threatens my (and everone's) freedom.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM

1. I've been to Dallas and I could have nailed JFK from that window in the TBD building. Really. I have no doubt Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. WHY is another story and since he was killed by Jack Ruby we'll never know. I do wish that they'd find Kennedy's brain, however.

2. Occam's Razor shaves best.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 07:22 PM

The official explanation normally involves a conspiracy of some kind anyway, it's just one that it's one that points in a convenient direction. That doesn't mean it's necessarily false, though sometimes it will be - but it's a conspiracy theory none the less.

Right now there are all sorts of theories about Benazir Bhutto's death, with fingers being pointed in all directions. But it's pretty self-evident that it was a conspiracy that brought about her death. Who was involved, well that's another question.

Theories that don't stand up (and that's most theories) should be rejected because they don't stand up - but labelling them as "conspiracy theories", as if that was the end of the story, that's just shoddy thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 07:42 PM

That seems to be the beauty of "Conspiracy Theories." Any time somebody comes up with an idea you disagree with, all you have to do is label it a conspiracy theory and the other guy loses his credibility with the public.

                         Rush Limbaugh does that all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 08:10 PM

"Do Mudcatters (at least many of those who post often) like simple answers to complex political and economic phenomena"

Actually, many 'conspiracy theories' are highly complex answers for simple phenomena. Conslt "Occam's Razor", also known as 'Keep it Simple Stupid'.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 08:38 PM

"I do wish that they'd find Kennedy's brain, however."

At least we know thathe had one: I do wish that George would find his...

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 09:59 PM

They found W's brain in the National Archives and made a movie out of it. The archivists also found out what Cheney's been up to.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM

Well, I do think it's fascinating what a wealth of conspiracy theories we have to choose from on Mudcat threads below the line.

Just a few of the greatest hits:

1) Religion is the root of all evil.

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.

Corollary--the 2008 election is also already lost.

3) The plausible reasons for 2004 do not include some undetermined powers that be, knowing Dean was the more powerful candidate--dead wrong on that--deciding to eliminate Dean so that Bush could be elected. Sorry, that just doesn't pass elementary logic.

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.

5) The US government blew up the Twin Towers, or OK'ing it. To our credit, we mostly reject that one.

6) The US invaded Iraq as part of a plan to take over all world oil resources--at the behest of Big Oil, if that's your chosen flavor of conspiracy.

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.

I'm sure you can add more.

"But it really doesn't matter (what) you put upon the list..."

Actually what I was really interested in is why Mudcat is so honored as to have this wonderful assortment of conspiracy theories.

One possibility might be the comfortable anonymity Mudcat affords to anybody who does not use his or her real name. With anonymity, a poster can hazard the most absurd theories imaginable, secure in the knowledge that he or she will not have to defend them--after all, it's not the poster's real name.

You can make the most unlikely allegations--for instance, an all-encompassing and long-standing US imperialist plot--and never have to provide any evidence. In a 3-D conversation, your debate partner could press you for evidence--and walking away might be awkward. On Mudcat, no problem--just go to another thread, another site--or anywhere else--and wait til the thread disappears.

Does that sound plausible?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 11:47 PM

"You can make the most unlikely allegations--for instance, an all-encompassing and long-standing US imperialist plot--and never have to provide any evidence."

                Ron - The political elite in this country do this every day of the week. Nothing ever happens to them.

                      And why to you insist on trying to protect religion? I would think in the light of the recent events, you'd finally come to your senses.

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

I think that a religion's teachings should be separated from the actions of those who profess it.    There is all too often no relationship at all between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:24 AM

With you, Rapaire.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 07:52 AM

Rapaire - Yes, I would agree with that too. But very often some individual will use the "teachings" to justify actions that are totally contrary to the teachings.
                            That might satisy somee definition of insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 08:44 AM

As I stated early on this thread and what Rigs has restated... Just the tern "conspiracy theory" is used much the way the term "liberal" is used... It has been PR'd to a point where any factual story can be blanketed with the "conspiracy theory" label and everyone is supposed to automatically disbelive the factual story...

As for the 2004 election, Ron, perhaps you'd like to esplain why the relationship between Diebold and the Bush administration??? Or perhaps why the winning party is the same party who has fough so hard to not have a paper trail??? No, we can't prove any wrong doing, like in 2000 election where there is a mountain of evidence that Katherine Harris and Jeb ush broke their own laws in order to get over 50,000 mostly black voters off the rolls... But given the 2000 election it is not "unreasonable" to think that something went wrong in Ohio in 2004...

I mean, if we are trying to sell the concept of "democracy" we need to get our elections right and for folks to just put the "conspiracy theory" on the 2004, or even the 2000 election is like telling the rest of the world that we are no better than countires where elections are always corrupt... LIke in Iraq when Saddam got 99% of the vote...

So, please, Ron, don't fall into that trap... You are too good a thinker to be sucked into such undemocratic PR trickery... And make no bones about it, that is what "conspiracy theories" is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 09:35 AM

Yes, Kevin, obviously conspiracies do exist--it seems very likely that Bhutto's death was due to a conspiracy--but not definitely. The Bush campaign to hoodwink the US public into supporting a war against Iraq is another that could be labelled a conspiracy--quite a few people engaged in promoting a view that some of them knew was not supported, and consciously keeping evidence that might refute their views from being made public.

But Mudcatters seem to see a lot more of them than the general educated public does. All the ones on my list are conspiracy theories.

And obviously not just Mudcatters like--and possibly believe them. The Da Vinci Code is a perfect case in point--who knows how many people actually believe that Opus Dei actually sponsors murder? Some no doubt do believe it--since it confirms their already firmly-held prejudice.

And to label all labeling of such ideas "shoddy thinking" is itself shoddy thinking. I trust you were not doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

How about this site?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: john f weldon
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 11:17 AM

It is increasingly obvious that the Mudcatters are a dangerous group, planning to establish the Independent State of Mudcattistan. And then rule the world.

If I'm allowed to be the Grand Vizier of of Peterpaulandmaryville, I won't let on!

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 11:39 AM

There is a popular idea that there are conspiracy theories that involve malfeasance of the government in orchestrating events. The conspiracy idea is that these theories are inherently false and thus given the name "conspiracy" as if to downplay or denegrate
them. This is a buzz-word that is often used by some to challenge those who would open investigations.

An open mind would not dismiss an idea with a label. To scoff or to laugh at a so-called "conspiracy" theory is to deny any credibility of an idea without giving it necessary thought. This is the problem with information for which the public is given. It is not usually tested and assumptions are made based on prejudices and political bias.

The people on Mudcat appear to be intelligent and aware of current events. This is one of the reasons I bother to read the comments and respond.

Intelligent dialogue on a topic is better than dismissing any out of hand. I have found some very insightful comments from folks on Mudcat which keeps me interested not only in the musical side but the BS side as well.

I don't think that Mudcat is all about "conspiracy theories" any more than the nature of information given officially by the news media or the present administration. An attempt to brand Mudcat as being loony or frivolous because of built-in bias or condescension on the part of those who don't care for dialogue is disingenous.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: john f weldon
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 11:45 AM

Sometimes the most unlikely ones turn out to be true; the events surrounding Dr. Cameron, the Allan Memorial, and the CIA were oft whispered about, but dismissed as incredible and nutty.

Later, the reality turned out to be worse than the theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:05 PM

The point, Frank, is that many Mudcatters (who comment below the line) seem to see more conspiracies than they have evidence for. It is not a suppression of dialogue to require evidence--sorry if you think it is. Exactly which of my listed conspiracy theories have been proven to be actual conspiracies? And why do you feel the evidence is conclusive?

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. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

Can I come at this from the other end, i.e. not evidence or otherwise of conspiracies; but evidence or otherwise for cover-ups or withholding of evidence or the relaying of a self-evidently incomplete picture.

There must be any number of books and articles offering evidence of any of those. And writing those books require banks of researchers to discover what's been hidden, buried etc. We posters can't have our own research team.

So, I could quote Greg Palast (in "The Best Democracy Money can Buy") saying he had in front of him 2 CDs of voters' names, voters who had been purged from the Florida voting rolls. Something to do with criminality, tho' over 90% of them were innocent.

At some point, CBS's office was contacted about the story. CBS called back to say the story didn't stand up. They were asked what they'd done to check. "We rang Jeb Bush's office."


Does quoting any sources with that sort of stuff help with the argument? We'll see.


One more ex.

Astronomy arose out of astrology. And Isaac Newton was an astrologer, amongst other things. Two of Melvyn Bragg's BBC In Our Time learned discussions were about the history of astronomy and about Newton. In the two 40-minute progs., not a word about astrology. Unless you already knew, how would you know there was anything missing. And that's also a question in general.

And many of the occult works of the great scientists incl. Newton, have simply not been translated from the latin.

As I asked once before, how do you know when you're ill-informed? (I include myself). Those would be 'unknown unknowns' - things you don't know you don't know.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

I wonder if the Lakota Nation will develop Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM

There are not any absolute ways to know when you are being fed partial data, or even false data, if it is skillfully done. There are certain intuiitive alarms that go off when you are fed bad data, but you have to keep a sharp eye out for them. And you have to be very good and finding out more data, figuring out ways to test data, and learning what false data smells like.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:23 PM

Surely the most interesting of all, and hardest (impossible to know about?) of all, is omission of data, editing out, never getting on the dial in the first place, censoring, never referring to ever (so how would we know?) - all of which I alluded to above.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:24 PM

So you did. But it is possible to develop a sense for when data has been left out and be demanding about finding it out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 11:08 PM

Rig-

Fine. So there's both a group seeking to give California, New Mexico, etc. back to Mexico,and another group which has "officially" seceded from the US, in another part of the country.

So the question becomes: why should we take either group seriously, anymore than the Branch Davidians or any number of survivalist groups? My contention would be that if you do take either of the groups you've cited seriously, you do in fact buy the conspiracy theory that group represents.

And again, just why do you--or anybody else--take such groups as anything but fodder for the National Enquirer and like media--and now cheap entertainment for those of us who read about them on Mudcat?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:39 AM

A
I dunno.

If someone has heard the 2 Bragg progs I mentioned, just for example, I can't understand how they'd sense that the astrological bit had not been included, if they were learning about the hist. of astrology and about Newton for the first time.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 07:23 AM

"So the question becomes: why should we take either group seriously, anymore than the Branch Davidians or any number of survivalist groups?"

                   Timothy McVay took the Branch Davidians seriously and errected a big hole in the middle of Oklahma City where the federal building used to stand.


                   But the group that call itself La Voz de Aztlan is different because it is part of a network with many splinter groups. There is a student group called MEChA, who have chapters in many major universities in the US. Some of the chapters distance them selves from the more radical LVdA, but some chapters do not. The one time LT. Governor of California, Cruz Bustamonte, was a member of one chapter, and there are other people in positions of authority, who are members.
                   You can go online and find the MEChA chapters. Some seem benign, some don't. There was a push a few years ago for individual chapters to clean up their web pages, so as to not look so militant.
                   Moving a little farther away from LVdA, there is La Raza. They seem completely normal on the surface, and they are often quoted in news stories as a Latino advocacy group. But when one looks into it, one often finds that an individual La Raza supporter will often be a product of MEChA, and will have ties back to La Voz de Astlan and other more militant groups.

                   I can remember a time when nobody took wakked-out-weirdos like Pat Robertson, Jim Jones, and Doctor James Dobson seriously, but look what's happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:57 PM

Rig--

Finally I have an answer as to at least one Mudcatter who believes in various unlikely conspiracies--you do.

Not that it's a big surprise--from somebody who believes religion causes all the evil in the world.

Come on now, let's think about this a little. Do you really think Timothy McVey needed the Branch Davidians for any inspiration? Look, he's a wacko.


And you really think we should be quaking in our shoes at Russell Means (I believe that's the man) and his group?   And La Raza? Since when is that a threat to our way of life? Only in your mind--and of course the fertile imagination of giant intellects like Mr. Tancredo.

Before you go drawing parallels between these groups and Hitler, for instance--and warning us we must nip them in the bud-- consider the difference between post-WW I Germany and now, as far as receptiveness in the general population to radical groups. In fact there's a much greater possibility that Hispanic immigrant groups--legal or not-- will face more discrimination--nativism is definitely on the rise-- than that any part of the US will be given back to Mexico.

You need to wipe the foam from around your mouth and start looking for actual evidence that either of the groups you have cited has any substantial clout--even among Indians or Hispanics, respectively.

And if you do find such evidence, be sure to let us know.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:01 PM

Ron - My reaction to your most recent post is--what kinds of mushrooms have you been putting in your soup?


                      Timothy McVay (I guess it's really spelled McVeigh) did what he did, by his own admission for the sole purpose of avenging the Branch Dividians. As far as I can see, there was nothing else out there to motivate him.

                      I don't recall any reference to Russell Means, and had to look him up to even find out who he even was (is?). And I don't see anyone out there drawing a parellel to Hitler.

                      If you don't think these groups have any clout, why do you think all of the Democratic candidates are tripping all over themselves for the purpose of cultivating the Latino vote?

                      You continue to ask for evidence. Evidence is provided, and you change the subject. All you have to do is to visit the La Vos de Aztlan website and they'll be happy to show you what they are thinking. Look at a few of the MEChA websites as well--most are pretty tame, but a few of them show their true colors.

                        When you've had a chance to review the evidence, come back and let us know what you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 12:00 PM

About non-evidence of info thereby givingrise to conspiracy theories, there are crudely two places where the evidence can be missing from.

The obvious one is in the public arena. Have you not heard the phrase used,"That (event) went unreported in the West"? If it's not reported, how are you going to know about it?

And I re-refer to my example from Melvyn Bragg's programmes.

The less-obvious place where info can go missing is in your head. If there is stuff not in your head (whether it's out there or not), the natural need is to make a complete picture from the info you do have (a 'gestalt' or pattern). The place where there is info (including theory) missing, is just the place where things like conspiracy fits; precisely in order to make the pattern, aka making sense of what you do know.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:37 PM

auto - I would agree. When news organizations condense the news by leaving things out, or not reporting, they leave a lot of room for conspiracy theories to originate and develop.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM

And those in the UK who listen to the r4 Today prog in the mornings, will have got another insight in how what gets broadcast can vary.

That was because ober the hols, the BBC handed the editing of the prog. to various non-BBC, non-jounalistic groups.

One group were police from Wales; amother was a group of scientists.

Suddenly, the agenda of the Today changed.

And the hosts said things like,'our guest editors asked us to look at.........' Thus you get to see that agendas are set, that there is selection of material and of interviwees.

We should NEVER forget that all tv and radio and newspaper and magazine outlets cannot report everything (so they select; so what's left out?); don't want to report everything; AND HAVE EDITORS, who CHOOSE what to report and how to report it.

    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 03:09 PM

Ivor:

That is exactly the point I was tryuing to make; when you get skilled at data analysis, you notice when your head-map is disjoint with the territory it maps, and develop an instinct for sniffing out where the disconnects are by acquiring the missing data or identfiying the false or distorted data you are using to build your map with.

But this is a skill or discipline that requires education.

Unfortunately very few teach it, so most folks acquire it from the School of Hardy Knocks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

More unfortunate than that, a lot of folks don't acquire it at all, which is probably why it's become so much easier to sell the public a bill of goods like WMD in Iraq and etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 04:09 PM

Amos

Yes, i had already got what you were saying.

I was adding another strand, namely "unknown unknowns" - stuff that people don't know they don't know, and where the kind of analyses you are rightly describing won't work.

What you're talking about will work in some situations and not others; that's my point.

And people can get to recognise disconnects as you say. Ir's what happens next that often matters.

many, instead of investigating further, researching further (no time, insufficient interest,et cetera), decide how to fill the gaps out of their assumptions, their common sense, their previous vast experience, their existing belief system.

And reach any number and type of weird and wonderful theories and beliefs. Which they, very simply, know are true.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:12 PM

Rig--

Nice try--you certainly are a master of the deft smear.

Look, there is a huge difference between the legal Hispanic vote--the vote of the fastest growing ethnic group in the US--and crackpot groups seeking to return parts of the US to Mexico. Democrats would be fools to not appeal to Hispanic voters--and, as I've said in my thread of the same title--"Tancredo": Democrats' Best Friend" -- the Republicans are in fact classic idiots for chasing Tancredo's fool's gold. The smart ones--and even some of the dull ones, like Bush--realize this.

I'm not surprised you can't see it. There's none so blind as....

And you have a vested interest in refusing to see the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:56 AM

Ron - All of this name calling and finger pointing doesn't seem to be moving the ball down the field.

                         Maybe if we stood back and looked at the big picture. It's not just people from South and Central America migrating to the US, in Europe there are people migrating from Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia. None of that would cause those of us who are concerned about environmental issues a great deal of heart burn if the populations in the places the people are coming from were going down.
                        Those populations are not going down, and that's the problem.

                        I would agree that Tom Tancredo is against illegal immigration for all of the wrong reasons, but he's against it, so it becomes a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing. And to me, it's a no-brainer--his evil is much less threatening than the evil of wall-to-wall people.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:10 PM

One reason for the vulnerability to conspiracy theories is the world-view of the over-burdened mind. When too many difficult connections, overwhelming situations, or heavy losses or threats of losses stack up, an individual will stop being able to spot individual connections, particular people and objects, and will start a process of non-rational generalizing. This can be relatively harmless in small doses ("I hate pople who yell...") but it can very quickly head South into complete neurosis and a fear of large, vague generalities -- a fear grounded in individual unconfrontable connections, made nounless by undissipated pain.

As a result we get people whose thinking moves along blocks of generalized lumps representing the things and people of life very inaccurately, and the thinking based on this mode is itself very inaccurate. "All womenz is nuts", "All French poeple are communists", "men are peegs", "ragheads are psychotic killers", and so on.

When a person is depressed into this kind of irrationality, any generalization that will make it easier to avoid looking at the actual connections and incidents serves as a port in a storm of discomfort.

A similar kind of nuttiness can be instilled by exposing an individual to negative generalizations as data, even if he is in good enough shape to think more clearly than that. This is why a person can sometimes get a great relief and boost in his general outlook just by unplugging his TV set and ignoring newspapers for ten days. It removes sources of unthinking negative generalizations and he starts to get connected with reality in a specific and confrontable way again.

It's a wise person who takes a minute to pin down the particular transactions or connections or incidents he is using to make general conclusions from.

A
Big-Mouthed Guru Par Excellence
...(sigh)
(I can't help it, it's the way I was drawn!)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

Rig--

I told you exactly why there is a huge difference between the legal Hispanic vote and the crackpots allegedly dreaming about returning part of the US to Mexico.

Now do you understand or not?

And if you do understand, you should also be able to recognize that anybody who takes seriously the idea of any group with any clout pushing to return any part of the US to Mexico has bought into that conspiracy theory--with absolutely no evidence. Just publication of the idea says nothing about how widespread support--among any group--including Hispanics---there is for such a move.

And if you think there is such support, we need to see the evidence.

Otherwise, it seems likely you are simply scare-mongering. Unsurprisingly.

Just as, for instance, there is very little support among secularists for "stamping out" religion. Radical solutions to problems often find little favor.

And if you do not respond directly to my question above, it will be obvious you want to drop the topic you yourself brought up--since you realize it's a loser. But I can tell you I will not drop it til I get a straight answer out of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM

Ron - I thought you started this thread, but however it got going, I'll just conclude with this: according to recent research it seems that approximately 25% of the legal Latino citizens in the country now agree with Tancredo on illegal immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:26 PM

1) "...recent research..."--somehow, not convincing. We need exact wording of the survey question, for instance, and your exact source.

2) You were the one who brought up the supposed push to return parts of the US to Mexico. Now do you believe this idea has extensive support among any group--including Hispanics--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM

Amos - agreed.

btw, do you get the feeling on this thread of living in a parallel universe?   Or even of being ignored? :-)

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:57 PM

What can I say?--I agree completely with what Amos is saying--and what you're saying also Autolycus, insofar as I understand it.

Rig is giving sterling examples of conspiracy theories--and that he believes them--and I'm trying to find out why, since he's an intelligent, articulate guy--therefore you'd think would not be taken in by such stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:38 PM

Fair enough, Ron, and I do see we haven't been ignored (I think I should have said I ignored your discussion- I was so into the one with Amos)

I THEREFORE WISH in a non-shouting way, to apologise for accusing you of what I was doing.

(Note to self;more clarity when posting please)

I think we just have to keep our nerve and maintain our balance in the face of the wacky theories out there and the sensible-seeming people who subscribe to some of them; not to mention keeping a beady eye out for possible conspiracies.



Sites like this can be a way of helping in the process with the provision of accurate information and clarity of expression




One thing about which I don't know if anything can be done is when Mudcatters will nor read/face this, that or the other argument or set of facts.

(The lack of a God-like adjudicator is a major drawback - despite the offers of some 'catters to take up posts like that)

Cos I've noticed that if someone makes a brilliant argument, or comes up with knockdown info, their opponents simply disappear.

I rarely read, "Wow, I was wrong; you've convinced me."

And I still remember that phrase I came across a few times last year where people have changed their mind (on UK radio,e.g.). They have explained their previous erroneous view by saying,

"I didn't allow myself to............(know/hear/understand/listen)"

How you deal with that defeats me so far.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 04:28 PM

I often disallow myself to hear what someone is saying in a post, but only after I have carefully, thoughtfully, and analytically reached the conclusion they were a flaming wanker or a blame eedjit, before I erect any blind spots. So at least I have a quality-assurance process... ;>)



A

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

A Gallup poll in June, for instance, found that 32% of Latinos believe immigration levels should be decreased, and three in 10 believe that the government should not make it easier for undocumented immigrants to become citizens.

Mexican American Robert Vasquez, 55, a Republican county commissioner in Canyon County, Idaho, wants his county declared a disaster area because he says undocumented workers are straining the county budget, primarily through costs to the county health system. He wants the county to sue employers who hire illegal immigrants.


Latinos divided on immigration issue
Updated: April 10, 2006 06:17 AM PDT
News 4 Special Report: Defending the Border

Contrary to scenes of hundreds of thousands of united Latinos marching across the country in support of immigration reform, a sizable number of the ethnic group opposes the marches and strongly objects to illegal immigration.

But their voices have largely been muffled by the massive protests, which will continue Monday as tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected to take to the streets of Tucson, Phoenix and other cities nationwide.

They are voicing their support of a Senate bill that would give an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country a chance for U.S. citizenship.

"That's the objective of the marches -- to give the impression that all Latinos are for allowing the illegals to become citizens," said Phoenix resident Lionel De La Rosa. "Well, I'm not."

The 71-year-old Texas native and Vietnam veteran said he favors punitive measures more in line with the immigration bill passed by the U.S. House in December that would have made it a felony to be in the United States illegally.

"I'm for that 100 percent," he said. "As far as my Latino friends are concerned, they all agree on this."

A 2005 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that Latinos in general have favorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.

But when it comes to illegal immigration, significant numbers have negative views of illegal immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 05:33 PM

Rigin - what's your point with that last post?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

I was trying to help Ron chill out.

               After stating a number of Latinos didn't like illegal immigration either, he demanded I provide sources. Now that he has sources, I was hoping his blood pressure would come down.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM

No problem with blood pressure, Rig. Sorry if a request for evidence gets you hot and bothered.

I note a few problems with your "evidence".

1) One survey is from April 2006--over 1 1/2 years ago. Not good enough--we need more recent evidence--especially since your friend and mine, Mr. Tancredo, has been busily alienating Hispanics ever since that survey.

2) Though asked for the exact wording of the survey, you somehow forgot to include it.

3) You've also forgotten to actually answer my question--which was, to help you: what is your evidence that there is widespread support in the US Hispanic community for the idea of returning parts of the US to Mexico?--which was, you perhaps recall, the scare headline you cited---the reason we should be concerned about La Raza.


You still have not provided any evidence that this idea is anything more than a conspiracy theory--which you believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM

Today all the cable news channels spent an hour reporting a report from somebody who claimed that an Iran boat TAUNTED a US military ship in INTERNATIONAL WATERS by saying "we are coming at you. You wil explode in a couple minutes"

Of course nothing happened but HOW DARE IRAN TEASE OUR NAVY !

Now if there is a second incident where shots are fired or there is a loss of US life, one could argue that Iran started it.

Is there any conspiracy at work here or is it a case of a real nasty taunting by an Iranian sailor?

I dunno. But to get more cable news coverage than a blonde bimbo in rehab, is a lot of attention for an alleged 5 second marine radio communication.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:00 PM

Here for something more authoritative

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/middle_east/7175325.stm


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:48 PM

Other than the Daily Show we need a TV show called Conspiracy theory week. It opens with the theme song 'there coming to take me away he he'

Maybe the Onion will get a cable TV slot.

Subject: RE: BS: Conspiracy Theories' Popularity
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 May 10 - 10:07 AM

See this cartoon entitled The Flake Equation. Replace "alien sighting" with "evidence to support a conspiracy theory" and you have a pretty good explanation for what is going on.

"The Flake Equation" is a satirical take on the Drake equation.