Jonathan Kay: "Among the Truthers"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-12/jonathan-kay-among-truthers
Throughout American history, conspiracy theories have flourished as a way to explain pivotal events: the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, and the moon landing. But in the decade since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the number of those who believe in such theories has blossomed. Diane and her guest take an in-depth look at the underground world of conspiracy theorists.
Guests
Jonathan Kay
managing editor, columnist, and blogger at Canada's "National Post" newspaper.
Program Highlights
The New Rise of the Conspiracy Theory
Have conspiracy theories been gaining momentum in the past several years? Why do there seem to be so many conspiracy theories gaining traction these days?
"Conspiracy theories always flourish in the aftermath of great traumas...and America is a very traumatized place right now," author Jonathan Kay said. In addition, the mainstream media used to have fairly good control over the flow of information, but the Internet has drastically shifted this power.
Diane wondered if the theorists believe what they're saying. Kay says he believes most do, with the possible exception of Donald Trump, who he says has made a marketing campaign out of false information (most recently centered around planting doubt in the public mind about President Obama's country of birth).
The "Need to Recreate History"
Conspiracy theories can be a tool to write history according to an individual's ideological script, Kay says.
Conspiracy theorists are bi-partisan, Kay says, as evidenced by the group of 9/11 "truthers" who tend to ascribe to extremely left-wing ideology; and "birthers," or those who question President Obama's U.S. citizenship, who ascribe to right-wing ideology.
Every conspiracy theory has some grain of truth to it, Kay said, and in the end, that's ultimately what makes the theory credible.
Keeping Secrets
Watergate and Iran-Contra were fairly limited, and even so, people have a hard time keeping secrets. "The problem that most people have with ambitious conspiracy theories is that people are just really bad at keeping secrets," Kay said.
JFK's assassination is obviously a special topic, Kay says. In that case, it's impossible to disprove the conspiracy theory, and that's why it's so tantalizing. There really could have been someone else acting with Oswald. You can't put JFK in the same category as 9/11 or the birther movement, because there really could have been someone else," Kay said.
There are so many places a person who has information can go to disseminate that information in a country like the U.S., says Kay, as opposed to in a place like Iran or Syria.
Author Extra: Jonathan Kay Answers Your Questions
Jonathan Kay stayed after the show to answer a few more questions.
Q: I so appreciate Jonathan Kay for highlighting this phenomenon, and Diane for hosting him. I've been aware of this trend for several years and know some people involved (and they perfectly fit the general profile Jonathan described). I'm wondering, does Jonathan see any potential for this trend eventually leading to violence - either by individuals or in uprisings? Also, is Jonathan aware of the book Behold a Pale Horse which seems to be seminal for many conspiracy theorists?
- From Blondie via Email
A: The conspiracy theorists I interviewed generally were not violent in any way – and did not even pose any threat of violence that I could see. Most were bookish internet addicts, not gun-toting types (though, of course, there are always exceptions). 9/11 conspiracy theorists, in particular, emphasize the need to pursue the “truth” through activism, litigation, public education and other peaceful methods. At 9/11 Truth events, the leaders take great care to ensure that demonstrators do not get out of hand. And when they hold protests in public places, they obey the instructions of police. I am aware of the book Behind a Pale Horse, and allude to it briefly in my own book – but the influence of that book, and those like it, generally were/are confined to militant survivalist/militia types in the Midwest. And these movements were mostly infiltrated and broken up in the last 15 years, as part of the fallout to the Oklahoma City bombing.
Q: I was wondering if Mr. Kay has anything to say regarding gender as it relates to conspiracy theorists, i.e., are most of these folks men rather than women, or are there any notable differences as to which conspiracy theories men and women are attracted to, etc.?
- From a listener via Email
A: Good question. And I will respond with a quote from my book: “[The science-fiction aspect of many conspiracy theories] is one of the reasons why conspiracist movements tend to be so overwhelmingly male in their core membership. (Another is that the male mind tends to become more easily obsessed with abstract logic puzzles and eccentric ideological systems that are disconnected from the reality of day-to-day human existence—a subject to which I shall return in Chapter 5). For all their pretensions to sophisticated truth-seeking, conspiracists often seem stuck in the suburban-basement universe of secret decoder rings and Star Wars action figures. As Popular Mechanics editor James Meigs put it, many conspiracists have seen “too many movies”—particularly in the action genre. Like James Bond, freshly equipped at the beginning of each film with the latest gadgets from MI6’s weapons lab, the government agents of conspiracists’ imaginations have access to every sort of weapon ever invented—as well as many that are still imaginary. They possess Bond’s skill and savvy, as well. How else could they constantly avoid detection and capture?”
Q: Greatest overlooked conspiracies in this conversation: "Lobbyist." Don't all lobbyist conspire?
- From Jay via Facebook
A: Yes, they do. But they are all conspiring in different directions. And this is how a democracy should work — thousands of different actors, all seeking their own advantage, co-operating with one another where they have common interest; but also opposing one another where they do not have common interests. This is how things are supposed to work in an open society more generally — and I am speaking here not just about lobbyists, but also the media, NGOs, different levels of government and voters themselves. Massive ongoing, undiscovered conspiracies are only possible in nations where information and power are tightly controlled (such as modern-day North Korea). But that does not describe the United States.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thank you for the interview the conspiracy theorist. He revealed exactly what he is with his talk of Zietgiest being "hypnotic" and people surfing conspiracy websites and being "programmed." It is alarming to people in the corporate and the public propaganda system that people are going elsewhere for their information, so they join the "we are in the hands of good and honest people who are acting in our best interests, and it's our job to protect you from alternative ways of looking at things by ignoring those kooks" story telling conspiracy.
Of course, there are a lot of kooks out there. However, if there were real concern about people embracing kooky beliefs and ideologies, there would be an attempt to actually address people's concerns, rather than trying to shame them into conformity. The people who would be best able to do this, people like Noam Chomsky for example, are never heard in the corporate and the government media. What we get is an endless stream or center-right and further right politicians, former politicians turned think tank talking heads, and people like your friend the conspiracy theorist from Canada spoon feeding us a version that has nothing to do with real life.
If anybody was really concerned about conspiracy theorists, a start might be to listen to and respond to FAIR's critiques, for example. But of course, that will never happen because your real job is to big up the ruling class, and their employees in public life.
@Titus77: ah, but they do come forward. If you read some of the analysis of the tens of thousands of records from the Kennedy era that have only recently been released after persistent FOIA requests, you'll read where several mob members have confessed their roles in covering up vital information regarding that incident.
But no one, except for us 'lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists,' is really interested in this anymore, so it gets no significant publicity - at least not enough to rise above the ground clutter of American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.
@Titus77
Many conspiracies have been proven to be true years after the fact when individuals DID come out. Here are some examples:
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/02/28/the-9-most-shocking-conspira...
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-cons...
That is another myth or conspiracy theory that the Bush administration and our mostly complicity MSM fooled all Americans into believeing the WMD conspiracy theory. Millions of middle Americans marched against the invasion before the invasion in New York, D.C. and across the nation, 30 million world wide. Too bad our MSM did not show the world these protesters as they did the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt etc. WWII ,Korean, Vietnam, Desert Storm Vets. teachers, famililies pushing children in strollers and elders in wheelchairs, plumbers, doctors, lawyers students etc. Many of these folks had all ready contacted their Reps before the invasion, some even went so far as to be arrested before the invasion. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, El Baradei, Hans Blix, former President Jimmy Carter, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and many more came out before the invasion questioning the validity of the intelligence. Jason Vest at the Nation wrote about the questionable intelligence as well as those who were part of creating and dessiminating the false intelligence in an article "The Men from Jinsa and CSP" in the fall of 2002. The info was out there but not in the MSM. Although Diane Rehm and Neal Conan had some guest on who were questioning. You could even hear those questioning even getting through to Diane. But you had to dig.
Most Americans do not have the time or the interest so most believed what they were hearing repeated on MSM TV outlets
Millions knew before that the intelligence was bullshit. The MSM did not show you those old Vets etc at those rallies before the invasion
The same WMD's in Iraq conspiracy theorist (Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice etc) have been promoting the Iran has a nuclear weapons plan or all ready has nuclear weapons for at least 10 years.
There is no hard evidence to back up this "conspiracy theory"
And our MSM often goesalong with this often repeated "conspiracy theory"
Over at Mondoweiss
The Neverending Story: Updates on the fantasies, falsehoods, and fear-mongering about Iran’s nuclear program
by Nima Shirazi on May 11, 2011
Like 3 Retweet 4
On October 26, 2004, Trita Parsi, founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, conducted an interview for his book "Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States" (published three years later) with Shlomo Brom, a researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. Brom spoke of the Israeli government and military's use of "worst-case scenarios" to advance its own propaganda. “It’s much easier to give worst-case scenarios," he said. "It usually serves the personal interest of the planner. Because if you are giving the worst-case prophecy, then when it is not realized, everyone is happy. No one remembers it. But when it is realized, you can always say, 'I told you so.'" Parsi writes that Brom, who had previously served as director of the Strategic Planning Division in the Planning Branch of the General Staff of the IDF, "had been part of the Israeli intelligence apparatus when it systematically overestimated, and at times exaggerated, Iran's nuclear capabilities." He quotes Brom as admitting,
I have been listening closely for at least 10 years to mainstream media host and guest repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. NPR’s Terri Gross is one of the worst offenders. Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel not far behind.
Iran bashing started immediately after the invasion of Iraq. Reuel Marc Gerecht on the Diane Rehm show, Cheney on Tim Russerts, John Bolten and James Woolsey on Talk of the Nation, John McCain on Stephanapoulous, Hillary Clinton all over the place started repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Did the host of these shows challenge the “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” hooey debunked by Professor Juan Cole. Or referenced the nuclear program in Iran as an all ready existent nuclear weapon program. Hell I heard Fresh Airs host Terri Gross not only allow guest to repeat those unsubstantiated claims I heard her often repeat that hogwash herself MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow did the same but not quite as often as Gross.
More recently just after Mubarak was run out the MSM took their spotlights on the ‘wave of change” right over Tunisia and Egypt skipped the Palestinian protest and focused right on Iran all on time and in sync hours after Mubarak step down. Like clock work Richard Engel, Cenk Uygar and Rachel Maddow were banging on bad bad Iran.
Several Sundays ago Gloria Borger sitting in for Fareed Zakaria led the round table group that was discussing LIbya right over to what Gloria referred to as the “elephant in the room” bad bad Iran. Not a whisper about the real “elephant in the room” on all of these MSM outlets. Illegal Israeli settlements, Palestinian protest, the illegal wall built partially on internationally recognized Palestinian lands
@Brennan Moriarty: This comment is the kind of junk that COINTELPRO would spout in a place like this to make conspiracy theorists look like incoherent morons. According to the conspiracy theory of disinformation, the "powers that be" have a strong interest in making conspiracy theorists look foolish, so they invest time influencing public perception of them by trolling internet forums and high-traffic areas on the internet whenever the subject of conspiracy theories comes up. Please bear this in mind as you read these comments.
Indeed, the interview with this man seems to have served as a perfect opportunity for an alleged expert on the topic to say "oh they're pretty much deluded paranoiacs" while ignoring so so much. This is Operation Mockingbird still in effect.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Hunt's meth-addled ne'er do well (and in the end estranged) adult son claimed that Hunt confided in him a repeat of stuff you can find in many Kennedy conspiracy books. No documentation, no proof at all. I was shocked when I read the article in Rolling Stone that even a rag like that would publish it. If there's more to this story than I've just mentioned, please enlighten us.
One thing we know for sure - the previous regime illegally invaded a country, displaced and killed millions of people on the basis of lies. The chief criminal hardly dares to travel (well, he's safe in Canada) for fear of arrest, yet the leader of the current regime just shared the stage with him to celebrate a recent assassination. Kay called Obama "left leaning" - maybe if he's leaning towards the center out of Mussilini's left pocket. All we got from NPR on the assassination is 24/7 praise for this wonderful event - except Glenn Greenwald's appearence on Talk of the Nation, labeled as "Op Ed," with the guest relentlessly challenged and attacked by the host. Most conspiracies happen right in front of our faces, protected by a docile press, state power, and our fear and indifference. It's safer to fight chimeras than to confront the government about things they do right in front of us.
Regarding the fall of the Twin Towers, I think you ignore the studies by engineers who help us understand exactly what happened and why. So, it seems that just a little slip like this can lead you to a vast sense of a larger conspiracy--but it is fundamentally flawed.
Regarding the fall of the Twin Towers, I think you ignore the studies by engineers who help us understand exactly what happened and why. So, it seems that just a little slip like this can lead you to a vast sense of a larger conspiracy--but it is fundamentally flawed.
I am astounded.
Since this particular program focused on Jonathan Kay’s book, “Among the Truthers,” I called the Diane Rehm Show to discuss a “popular conspiracy theory” which certainly merits discussion, but which is being actively suppressed by the mainstream media.
What happened was that Diane Rehm -- who personally took my call -- chose to quite-aggressively suppress the topic I’d hoped would be discussed. Amazing.
After a pleasant exchange of amenities with Ms. Rehm, I said, “I would like to discuss the “conspiracy theory” that the military-industrial complex is testing electronic weapons on randomly-selected citizens of this country….”
Ms. Rehm immediately interrupted me with the very curious statement, “We’re not discussing specific conspiracy theories that are actually happening. We’re discussing where conspiracy theories come from.”
She then ABRUPTLY severed the connection, before I could point out that suppression of this topic by the mainstream media is a part of the overall “conspiracy.”
Ms. Rehm, if you know that electronic weapons are being tested by the military-industrial complex on randomly-selected citizens of this country, perhaps you should devote one of your programs to the topic. It is clear that you do not consider this a “conspiracy theory.”
@Titus77:
Even the official report from NIST refutes claims made by the popular mechanics article. It has, on the whole, been debunked.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvFuRYyEkiU
edit: not to mention the 1400+ architects and engineers who have gone on record with their determination that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished with planted charges, not destroyed by fires. http://www.ae911truth.org/
You ae absolutely correct about this. Millions of people knew this, and availed themselves of every channel they could think of to oppose things going forward on the basis of lies - the mechanisms that Kay was eager to present as diverse, numerous, and (he didn't say it, but he implied it) sufficient. Of course they were nothing of the sort. This is a real problem of democracy (for us, the problem is the lack of it; for the ruling class, our continual agitation for it). However, for Kay and Rehm the problem is that people aren't going to the traditional sources, and they sound the alarm that a few people get the facts wrong. It's classic stuff - when I was in libary school, the faculty was bleating about the Google search engine, while the first stop for every last student in the class to research class assignments was, of course, Google. Rather than try to get ahead of change and provide a good alternative, the old guard tries to discredit the agents of change. Of course, it is in their nature, they can't do anything else.
I agree that the inability to accept substantiated actuality of events is a form of mental illness, and it is especially noticeable in the statements that come out from such disordered minds. And it is also a practice of inane media hosts to persist in asking senseless, unimaginative and vacuous questions of anyone remotely or not even associated with extraordinary events, and what they know and what they think about such incidents that the public get over-fed and have less and less facts and definitely not the truth, as if they are experts or have extra-sensory insight!
Yes, learning how to balance what is reported with reality is a skill that needs to be as best articulated as possible and the only way that can happen is to learn, and teach, and make critical assessments. This art or technique for understanding in general is not really at the top of the scholastic agenda and is the reason why too many Americans cannot make informed judgments on what may or may not be the truth.
If the guest is part of a "public propaganda system", I didn't find it especially noticeable. His focus was on the psychological and cultural. (and rather than attributing systematic "programming" to any conspiracy site, he was rightfully addressing a common psychological effect of it)
That said, I would have liked to hear from him something about the failures of the mainstream media, and more about academic and fact-finding organizations....
Speaking for myself, I didn't need any media source to know there no WMDs in Iraq. We had been monitoring Iraq extremely closely for over a decade. It was virtually impossible to not know what was going on inside the country. There was no restart of the nuclear program, no secret tunnels into Syria. When Pres. Bush trotted the otherwise honorable Colin Powell in front of the UN General Assembly I knew instantly he was lying through his teeth. The truth is, the media get it right most of the time. That's their job. But they got it so wrong with Iraq that it's very difficult for me to believe the heads of the media companies weren't actively controlling the message.
"That said, I would have liked to hear from him something about the failures of the mainstream media...." But his theory doesn't include an analysis of the systematic failure of his and Diane's colleagues to offer a true and accurate account of the economic, social, and political factors that drive increasingly large numbers of people to embracing these alternative models. He presents the media and our institutions as buffers between us and bad ideas, rather than as a cause of bad ideas. While his overall presentation was bland and predictable, it was interesting to hear him getting testy with people who (repeatedly, and good for them) challenged him. "That can't happen here, that only happens in places like Iran," that sort of thing, quickly assert we don't have a coordinated propaganda system, castigate an official enemy, ridicule the caller, try to shame him and his ilk into keeping their crazy opinions to themselves. His construct would be atomized if he had to debate Chomsky or Herman, on the subject of propaganda, but he never has to worry about that, does he?
To create a class of argument called "Conspiracy Theories" is an attempt to discredit them before a fair hearing is given. There are only good and bad theories. Many of the worst are the most widely accepted. There are a multitude of kooks within the so-called truthers but there are even more in our media, government, corporations, educational system, religions, etc. Conspiracy theorists have no exclusive claim to "kookiness". In fact, I don't believe they even come close to the number in the aforementioned areas! I agree with many of the other posts made here that one reason for the need to discredit these theories by emphasizing the kooks is that the plutocracy in this country wants everyone to stay within the bounds of thought and argument created by the dialogue between the crats and pubs. Want to hear my conspiracy theory? I think that a great many of the conspiracy theories that like to blame a certain group for a given action or set of actions, are actually just disinformation campaigns meant to focus attention away from the fact that our problems are of a more systemic nature. Blame anyone you want but don't blame the system! That would mean we all need to change!
Also, blaming a person's viewpoint on a midlife crisis? Seriously? Did you ever take a logic class? Does logical fallacy ring a bell? Pyschologism? Ad Hominem attacks do not constitue a refutation.
I am very disappointed with the shallow coverage this topic received on a program that, for the most part, I respect a great deal..
I'm sorry, I didn't fully address your comments. He isn't part of the "public propaganda system" - Diane Rehm is. He is part of the "corporate propaganda system" which I also referenced. Increasingly, there is less and less difference between the two - for example, NPR features the same "experts" with their infantile prattle about "bad guys" as the mainstream press. They make less and less effort to appeal to an intellectual elite that requires a little logic and some facts to be persuaded to join the consensus. And there is less and less actually directly engaging in world events; increasingly, NPR talking heads interview other talking heads from Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and in this case, the National Post, a conservative Toronto-based paper. He'll say he doesn't toe any editorial line, of course, but it's always useful to remember that he says what he likes because theylike what he says. An aside: the repeated boasts from NPR about their own indespensiblity rings hollow to me... if I want to hear from those people, I can go to the source.
I have always thought one reason for conspiracy theories is the fact that most people are afraid of the real truth: Stupidity is the great unrecognized motive force in history, and sometimes bad things just happen! Far better to think there is a secret, and human, cause for everything. That way, if we can just uncover the conspirators and stop them, all the bad things will cease.
Novelist Jim Butcher, in his latest Dresden Files book Changes put it very well: Stupid is scarier than evil because there are "Only so many blackhearted villains in the world, and they only get uppity on occasion. Stupid's everywhere, every day."
mattlove1: points taken! as to the intellectual elite, I do respect a number of journalists/experts NPR hosts...
Maybe it's time to bring Chomsky and Herman off the back burner for required reading... and why not invite them to the show on that topic, Diane! You've had cable show loonies already! (not saying these are)
@Etaoin Shrdlu:
Yes of course stupidity is present. However it would be stupid to attribute all conspiracy allegations to stupidity alone. Quite a number of conspiracy theories have been proven to be true. Please don't be a part of the problem by simply dismissing everything that opposes the propaganda.
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/02/28/the-9-most-shocking-conspira...
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-cons...
Instead of ranting about conspiracy theories it would be constructive to do something that will put them all to rest. There is an inscription in a marble wall of the lobby of the CIA Headquarters in Langley that says: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Throughout my life I experienced over and over the liberating power of truth.
People have serious issues that need clarification. They not just have a right but obligation to ask questions. Government is the servant and has obligation to answer to the best of their ability. So far government refused to answer questions regarding tragedy of 9-11. If we stick with common sense I think it will be just common sense to try to investigate the question: why three buildings fell from impact of two planes while a third building was distant enough as to not suffer structural damage? Why WTC Building 7 fell into its footprint - a case of perfect demolition? Why Building 7 and testimonies of important witnesses were excluded from official 9-11 investigation report?
I invite Mr. Jonathan Kay to help bring issues like above questions to rest. So far government's conspiracy theories just can't stand scrutiny of experts from every corner of the world. This is a matter of national unity and restoration of trust to government through open, impartial reinvestigation of 9-11. Honest effort to answer public's questions, on uncensored life public forum is a best remedy to any conspiracy theory just as transparency is best remedy to keep officials from false accusations.
I will always stand for the truth. It as patriotic to seek truth as it is to seek justice. Truth is a beginning point after any disasters. Truth makes rebuilding and healing possible. Truth is the most important tool of justice. I am proud to be proponent of truth. If media tries to give negative flavor to truth seekers and to truth itself it only proves what they are worth.
With all due respect to Mr. Kay, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh - and a goodly number of their followers (among many others) ARE manifestly mentally ill: they are divorced from measurable, observable, evidence-based reality; this is called psychosis and is contained in the DSM. Whether the lunatic ravings that Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moon landing occurred on a sound stage (or, for that matter, that the Earth is six-thousand years old), these people are not rational and are disconnected from reality - therefore not sane, by definition.
@AJ North:
It is important to make a distinction between the varying levels of kookiness in conspiracy theorists, and conspiracy theories. For example, I see three general categories of CT supporters:
1. The people selling BS, who put together coincidences and bits of esoteric junk and bundle it into a kooky fearmongering or paranoia-stimulating package.
2. The people gobbling up the BS, who at some point DID recognize that they can't trust everything they are told and yet haven't been able to develop critical thinking skills. They latch onto "theories" and mythologies from group #1 because it seems to make sense to them, even though they haven't invested the time to check it all out. (These people deserve sympathy/empathy and respectful assistance, not derision and ridicule as this will only make the situation worse)
3. People who recognize that there are actual conspiracies and secrets for which there is supporting evidence, or people who consider the possibility of alternative stories of history or political happenings without necessarily believing them or proselytizing and calling people sheep. These are not lunatics, and yet because of groups 1 and 2, they are branded as such, and ridiculed because they question the status quo.
These aren't solid, and there are blendings, but it's important to remember that just because someone who is not rational supports a position it doesn't invalidate the position.
Additionally, there's a HUGE difference between people who give a darn about Obama's birth certificate and people who think that the CIA killed JFK.
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/03/conspiracy-theory-r...
"kathleen wrote:
I have been listening closely for at least 10 years to mainstream media host and guest repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. NPR’s Terri Gross is one of the worst offenders. Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel not far behind."
It isn't only unsubstantiated, it is outright lies. I have not heard a single "NeoCon Journalist" accurately quote The Iranian President's words on Israel. When the President was interviewed on CBS "60 Minutes", (a once honest broadcaster, now infested with NeoCon Rats and Liars) did not dare ask him about it.
Why don't you ask Patty "Terri" Gross about her 1993 Interview with Krauthammer, during which he claimed that North Korea had Dozens of Nuclear Weapons, which she quietly removed from her Archive?
Pulitzer Prize Laureate Richard "Mr Ed" Engel has provided an audience for several staged "battles" in which Soldiers stood up and poured fire into an empty hillside including one in which one of our brilliant Soldiers, going for more ammo, ran in front of a Machine Gun which would have cut him in two if the Gunner hadn't reacted quickly.
Wouldn't that have been nice item for the Evening News.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Mumberthrax on May 12, 2011 @ 1:38 pm wrote: "Yes of course stupidity is present. However it would be stupid to attribute all conspiracy allegations to stupidity alone."
And where did I, sir? Answer: nowhere! I simply explained why many people are quick to embrace conspiracy theories, instead of being skeptical and demanding strong evidence.
Yes, sometimes conspiracy theories prove to be true. Anyone remember a certain "third-rate burglary"? But far more often they turn out to be false. The only way to "separate the wheat from the chafe" is to demand strong evidence. What Carl Sagan (I believe) said about science applies here as well: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Take the "birther" controversy. The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii was pretty conclusive years ago. His short-form certificate (which by law was prima facie proof) placed the burden on the birthers to provide solid evidence sufficient to rebut that proof. They never did. All they gave us was speculation, cynicism, and obviously forged documents that didn't stand up to scrutiny for even a day. And none of them ever explained the contemporaneous Hawaii newspaper announcements of his birth. (Personally I favored the theory that the Master, that evil Timelord, used his TARDIS to go back in time and plant false evidence as part of his plan to rule the Universe.)
So while it is true (as Freud said) sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, more often than not the people promoting conspiracy theories are just chasing unicorns!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "more often than not the people promoting conspiracy theories are just chasing unicorns!"
I certainly concede that the birthers are wasting their time on a stupid errand. I don't have statistics on which conspiracy theories have been proven to be false, so I can't agree or disagree with your statement, but I would ask for a source for your information.
I would also assert that even if the majority of conspiracy theories, or any theories, are false, it does not mean that none of them deserve careful consideration. I would posit that the evidence for thermate charges on 9/11 is strong, the government and military witness testimony for UFOs is strong, and the evidence supporting a CIA conspiracy in JFK's murder is strong. No matter how many loonies there are talking about vaccines and depopulation and new world orders or sleeper cells or birth certificates or fringes on flags or the IRS being a fraud, etc. there are still serious conspiracy allegations that deserve examination, not blanket ridicule.
Who was that guy -his name?- from California, the professional-architect who "went rogue" so to speak with 9-11 conspiracies.
Researching rhetorical [aristolean] "case studies" is the society-math where History etc is {is} the depth-sounding that navigates us out of unspoken straits, or unseen adversities and ultimately "connections"?
ed35waist30inseam:
Maybe you meant to say "trust", not "distrust" nosedived following the retirement of Walter Kronkite. (Not entirely true) I think if you read Chris Hedges' "Death of the Liberal Class" book you might understand how consensus in public opinion has been successfully manufactured and real facts concealed since before WWI. The breaking of Watergate, Cointelpro and related was probably a temporary failure of the media machine. By the time of Irangate a tune-up had occurred so that Savings&Loan Bustout, BCCI and other scandals barely registered on the public outrage meter. You must understand that "middle class" is an anachronistic concept at present because most households are in financial panic with no capacity for critical thought or resistance. We are a conquered consumptive population, dependent, atomized and monitored. Aljazeera and RT mostly spout the corporate line nowadays, so how can anyone trust NPR or the networks?
Newspapers are all tab, sensationalizing minor issues and ignoring the onrushing tsunamis. Citizens are sitting ducks in a predatory corporate shooting gallery. I gave William and Kate the "Easy Feet" as a wedding present, and Harry the "chef's basket" as a groomsman's favor; so easily ordered right off the screen during Entertainment Tonight. So have I fulfilled my capitalist obligations? Yes I have!