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.
Kay's assertion that conspiracy theories from the left are spread by university professors is outrageous. I am a university professor and most of us spend quite a bit of our lives doing serious and deep research on the subjects that we teach about. Our work is thoroughly examined by outside experts every time we apply for promotion; it is evaluated by students every time we teach a course; and our publicatiohs are always reviewed by other professors and editors. Unlike politicians, little of what we do goes unchecked. Most of us take our job seriously and are passionate about what we study. But with budget cuts, universities are changing. There is a definite move to the right as corporate interests such as Kock Industries buy their way in, funding far-right academic centers. If readers are interested, follow this link, which does not mention the public university where I work, where Koch Industries have also made a substantial investment: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/585995/6_universities_with_...
“in general the big lie only works in totalitarian societies that have complete control over the information flow. America is an open society and there are many channels open to challenge the received wisdom (gives examples)… so it is very difficult to maintain any kind of big lie in an open society..”
Apparently it is easier than the author thinks, solution: discredit them by dubbing them conspiracy theorists which has the connotation of “crazy person” and move on with it. The problem I have with the author’s argument is he seems to take the stance that ALL conspiracies (excluding the Kennedy assassination) are dreamt up by some irrational person totting the same old story time and time again. Some of us are free thinking intellectuals who can see through the BS that is fed to us by mainstream media. I recently had this conversation with my Grandma who grew up in Nazi germany under hitler. She said her father was labeled a conspiracy theorist and treasonous at the time because he thought the Nazi party had a more sinister agenda in mind (extermination of the jews) turns out.. he did. To follow blindly what you are told by your government and their propaganda system is to be ignorant. I believe it is YOU sir that has trouble grasping/believing reality. Its simply not as black and white as you think it is. I do look forward to reading your book though.
Please do not leave out the lunatic ravings of the manifestly mentally ill supporters of Obama who continue to believe he is a liberal alternative to the Bush Administration, when in every important way he continues to advance the anti-democratic economic / political / military / social agenda of the Bush Administration. I suppose I am somewhat concerned that so many people hold the delusional idea that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim trying to undermine western democracy by imposing Sheria law, but in truth I am far more concerned that so many people hold the delusional view that he isn't a thoughly conservative tool of the ruling, bent on undermining democracy and the economy to placate the greedy 1% of the population that controls 90% of the wealth. I am concerned that the undermining will be so extensive the whole system will collapse, and reasonable and moderate voices are almost completely absent in the debate among "respectable" commentators and deciders.
Jonathan Kay seems to misrepresent the views of large groups of people.
Most people who question the governments story of UBL's death do not suggest that he is alive; they suggest that he died about ten years ago.
Most people who question the governments story about the September 2001 attacks do not deny that planes hit the build. They simply point out that a forty-seven story building full of government offices collapsed through the path of most resistance at free fall acceleration, without being hit by an airplane.
The people who research JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, and the other political assassinations of that time do it not because they are uncomfortable with reality. They do it because the official stories behind those political assassinations are riddled with lies.
It's striking that Mr. Kay would go to such great lengths to cover a group of people, and then so grossly misrepresent them. I'm not sure he's being honest with his readers or with himself.
Or, if a conservative is desired, how about Paul Craig Roberts? Here (http://counterpunch.org/roberts05122011.html) he is saying something very similar to what I said when the BBC interviewed Elliot Abrams on human rights in Syria. Yes, Elliot Abrams has made quite a little career for himself as a human rights expert. I would like to hear the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua interviewed about Abrams record on human rights. I would like to hear an interviewer press Abrams on how the US happily ignored human rights when it sent prisoners to Syria to be tortured. But you never hear that sort of thing on NPR, or the sadly diminished BBC, carried on many of the same stations. The other day a guest said "Hillary Clinton cares about children," and Diane sighed, "oh yes." That might have not been the right context, but if public broadcasting was really that, I'd like to see a serious inquiry into Clinton's record on caring about Iraqi children, Palestinian children, poor children in America. But of course, it isn't really public broadcasting, its state broadcasting, and so all we will ever get is murmured (or shouted) approval over state misdeed and mislead.
Diane Rehm: "Is there something wrong with Glenn Beck's head?" That is the funniest thing I've heard all day!!!
Thank you!
PART II
But most of all, I don't like living in an America where people are so removed from reality that when someone questions the status quo they are labeled and marginalized as extremists. I don't believe I am alone... as evidenced by the rapid rise in which people are refusing to eat what they are served. People sense something is wrong, they are waking up from their trance, demanding answers and accountability. Mr. Kay's overall attempt to appear unbiased was so weak that it triggered an emotional response from this guy. I say thank you to all those who ask un popular questions. thank you to those Patriots who are paying attention and putting there own lives and reputations on the line by doing research and watching out for the rest of us. It would be a scary Orwellian world without them if they were to be quieted. Mr. kay pointed out that 99% of the folks he interviewed for the book were sane and intelligent people... Perhaps his ambition to prove his own theories overshadowed his chance to learn from his subjects. In closing, while some Americans are reading "Among the Truthers" while others are reading TMZ or watching the Jersey Shore; I will be tuning in to the mainstream and not so mainstream media outlets forming my own opinions. Thanks for nothing Mr. Kay.
PART I
From what I gathered, Kay is ultimately trying to say that questioning authority is a big waste of time and energy. That the current "conspiracy" theories are repeats of the past with ever changing characters etc... He argued that he could not get that point across to "theorists" without getting an emotional response from them. Well, I can relate to those folks who got emotional. Why? Because it matters. It matters to me as a natural born citizen of the United States. I don't like being told how I should think. I don't like the current state of affairs in this country. I don't like the direction we are headed and I am worried about what kind of world we are going to leave behind for the next generation.
Mr. Kay is a managing Editor of Canada's National Post newspaper and a Visiting Fellow at the FDD foundation for Defense of Democracies. In this interview he knocks those and stresses the danger of Individuals getting their news from "Fringe-Media". Being the editor of a paper and member of this think tank just proves to me that I am not getting fair and balanced news from the mainstream media... I have lisened to this interview several times now and the more i do... The less I like this guy... let alone trust him. He is part of the machine. Check out the link to the cast of characters at the FDD below.
(The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a neoconservative think tank that claims to conduct "research and education on international terrorism—the most serious security threat to the United States and other free, democratic nations. FDD produces independent analyses of global terrorist threats, as well as of the historical, cultural, philosophical and ideological factors that drive terrorism, and which threaten democracies and the individual freedoms guaranteed within democratic societies." Their work is closely linked with that of the National Endowment for Democracy.[1] FDD was created two days after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. -Sourcewatch)
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_fddbios&Itemid=326
One thing I did not hear from the author was the propensity of educated Truthers to believe they know it all (or can become instant experts). A scientist with "an extensive background and experience in Physics and Engineering" is not a civil engineer nor an expert on structural failure. "I did the math" does not mean much if you did the wrong math or lacked familiarity the math tools of civil engineers.
@Gwyneth Hannaford:
Why would you assume that educated "truthers" are doing the "wrong" math? Without seeing credentials, or examining their evidence you have no way of determining character or whether mistakes have been made.
Bob, why is it that the architects, involved with Yamasaki, know how the Towers came down? They did the math on their own project.
Even as a scientist, you should know that so much of what happens in this world happens by default, rather than by design.
Jonathan Kay.......you are a paid shill hired to help bring Obama to the WhiteHouse in 2012. You are tagging every intelligent being that is asking tough questions about events that shape the world as theorists. A sovereign free standing critical thinker that detaches himself from the manipulating world and its agents such as yourself, is being branded. Just answer the questions we have about events, and take time off from trying to answer questions that are digging you deeper into a whole of puppetry. Just answer the questions that have been omitted in officially appointed commission charged with investigating events, and the theories will go away as the conspiracies may be truly exposed. It is understandable that because of your great studies and knowledge about conspiracies and theorists, you have been chosen to deliver this thesis. And Diane Rehm.....have you been instructed to not ask the tough questions? Expose the poison that we are dealing with. It is rampant.
"They'll call someone... sometimes "neocon" is used a tag for a Jew."
--Jonathan Kay, apparently a mind-reader.
Sometimes there are conspiracies, and I don't think Mr. Kay would ever be able to tell. Do you?
Mr. Kay seamed unaware of any “Big Lies” by U. S. government. I propose 3.
Thanks Diane for allowing me to comment.
9/11 is an inside job.
Lots of reasons - here are some of the main ones
Iron-rich micro-spheres in the dust.
Building falling through their own mass at almost free-fall
onto its own footprint.
Lateral Ejections of heavy steel girders.
Dustification of concrete creating pyroclastic dust flow
The elegance of the WTC7 building collapse.
+ lots of other circumstantial evidence.
According to Mr. Kay , this is all irrelevant and is of no importance.
My final comment is that implying that who have questions relating to 9/11 that challenge the government view are anti-semitic is nothing short of outrageous.
Thanks
Whenever you see commentary from those, like Kay, who are obviously stooges employed to protect the officially endorsed conspiracy yarn as regards 9/11, a forest of red flags should appear in the field of vision of those with any grasp of reality. Those who do not want the truth to emerge are what is known in the trade as pseudoskeptics; in other words, those who employ arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism.
One thing is for sure: for the US government's story to be true would require the violation of no less than 3 fundamental laws of nature: Newton's Laws of Motion, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Conservation of Momentum. However, in the quest to keep our comfort zones intact, the American public, courtesy of the likes of Jonathan Kay, has taken leave of its common sense, preferring to not only believe that the only people capable of such a horrific act were Muslim radicals, but that they are also capable of breaking the laws of nature, at will, in the process. If the latter is correct, we are in far deeper trouble than we could possible imagine.
Finally, I would volunteer that Jonathan Kay, by putting energy into preventing justice from being served for the heinous crimes of 9/11, is actually helping to protect and harbor the perpetrators. Bush's statement "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" is quite the ironic utterance: the sole people who have tried to find out what really happened, and who planned, financed and carried it out, are the growing legion of good citizens who care enough for their country, and the security of the world, to put their necks on the line for the cause of liberty.
Whenever you see commentary from those, like Kay, who are obviously stooges employed to protect the officially endorsed conspiracy yarn as regards 9/11, a forest of red flags should appear in the field of vision of those with any grasp of reality. Those who do not want the truth to emerge are what is known in the trade as pseudoskeptics; in other words, those who employ arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism.
One thing is for sure: for the US government's story to be true would require the violation of no less than 3 fundamental laws of nature: Newton's Laws of Motion, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Conservation of Momentum. However, in the quest to keep our comfort zones intact, the American public, courtesy of the likes of Jonathan Kay, has taken leave of its common sense, preferring to not only believe that the only people capable of such a horrific act were Muslim radicals, but that they are also capable of breaking the laws of nature, at will, in the process. If the latter is correct, we are in far deeper trouble than we could possible imagine.
Finally, I would volunteer that Jonathan Kay, by putting energy into preventing justice from being served for the heinous crimes of 9/11, is actually helping to protect and harbor the perpetrators. Bush's statement "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" is quite the ironic utterance: the sole people who have tried to find out what really happened, and who planned, financed and carried it out, are the growing legion of good citizens who care enough for their country, and the security of the world, to put their necks on the line for the cause of liberty.
Most disappointing Diane Rehm Show Ever. 9-11 "truthers" does not equal moon landing "truthers".