Conspiracy Theories Drain Our Political Energy, Lead Nowhere

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Truth4Youth » Tue May 05, 2009 3:15 pm

ninakat wrote:T4Y, yes I'm aware of Zinn's past endorsements of D.R. Griffin's books. But did you watch/listen to the interview?

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?opti ... mival=3553

[quote=ninakat"]What about this quote?

"People will write books -- it'll be an enormous waste of good energy."

Isn't that a slap in the face to D.R. Griffin and all other 9/11 authors? Or, is Zinn merely in lockstep with the new Obama age of Let's Just Move On?


Zinn was saying that 9/11 was a diversion WAY BEFORE this interview. In fact he said it before speaking highly of Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking, about two or three years ago on Deadline Live w/ Jack Blood (but because GCN booted Jack those archives are now unavaiable, but feel free to email Jack and I'm sure he'll confirm what I just said).

And then there's:

"Maybe there was a conspiracy, who knows?" (Zinn laughs nervously)

"It's not that I doubt any of the doubters" (nervous laughter again)

ninakat wrote:Watch the video -- he doesn't take "conspiracy" or "the doubters" seriously at all. Why else would he laugh?


I think that's grasping at straws. The laughter could be interpreted a few different ways, such as laughter at what he sees as an "enormous waste of energy" regardless of the truth behind it.

ninakata wrote:
Truth4Youth wrote:Given the fact that people are still arguing about the Kennedy assassination to this day do you think that maybe he's right to some extent, at least from the perspective of someone seeking peace and justice in our world today?


No. That's a cop out. And, as I said above, I don't think his approach to peace and justice is any more effective than calls for a new 9/11 investigation.


How is that a cop out?
User avatar
Truth4Youth
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Tue May 05, 2009 5:28 pm

Truth4Youth wrote:
ninakat wrote:T4Y, yes I'm aware of Zinn's past endorsements of D.R. Griffin's books. But did you watch/listen to the interview?

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?opti ... mival=3553

[quote=ninakat"]What about this quote?

"People will write books -- it'll be an enormous waste of good energy."

Isn't that a slap in the face to D.R. Griffin and all other 9/11 authors? Or, is Zinn merely in lockstep with the new Obama age of Let's Just Move On?


Zinn was saying that 9/11 was a diversion WAY BEFORE this interview. In fact he said it before speaking highly of Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking, about two or three years ago on Deadline Live w/ Jack Blood (but because GCN booted Jack those archives are now unavaiable, but feel free to email Jack and I'm sure he'll confirm what I just said).


I stand corrected then. Regardless, why does Zinn say "diversion" and then endorse a D.R. Griffin book? Honestly, I have no idea but it sounds hypocritical on the face of it.

Truth4Youth wrote:And then there's:

"Maybe there was a conspiracy, who knows?" (Zinn laughs nervously)

"It's not that I doubt any of the doubters" (nervous laughter again)

ninakat wrote:Watch the video -- he doesn't take "conspiracy" or "the doubters" seriously at all. Why else would he laugh?


I think that's grasping at straws. The laughter could be interpreted a few different ways, such as laughter at what he sees as an "enormous waste of energy" regardless of the truth behind it.


OK, that's your interpretation. Mine still seems more plausible, given what I know about human nature. And it's consistent with his overall bent in the interview (which I interpret at a general disrespect for 9/11 truthseekers). Although I'm beginning to wonder if Zinn isn't just simply bipolar on 9/11. That would be grasping at straws.... but it offers an explanation for the dichotomy of his statements vs. his endorsements.

Truth4Youth wrote:
ninakata wrote:
Truth4Youth wrote:Given the fact that people are still arguing about the Kennedy assassination to this day do you think that maybe he's right to some extent, at least from the perspective of someone seeking peace and justice in our world today?


No. That's a cop out. And, as I said above, I don't think his approach to peace and justice is any more effective than calls for a new 9/11 investigation.


How is that a cop out?


Comparing 9/11 to JFK is done by people who dismiss 9/11 research all the time. I don't think it's a valid comparison -- in fact, it has become a cliche amongst those who diss the truth movement. The only parallels, in my view, are the fact that there was a crime and a cover-up, both involving operatives inside the government. Beyond that, there are striking differences, so to use the cliche is a cop out.

But I'm going to bow out of further discussion on this now. I think this is becoming tedious and I need to get back to the garden. I respect what you have to say though, T4Y -- I'm just not in agreement with everything, but do feel we're essentially on the same page. Solidarity, my friend.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Tue May 05, 2009 5:45 pm

"theory" ????
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nathan28 » Wed May 06, 2009 8:26 am

OP ED wrote:"theory" ????


Yes, as we all know, politics in democratic countries like the United States are carried out in the full light of day, regularly covered accurately and work exactly as represented. All that nonsense about backroom bargaining, or about how most bills are written by interns and naive college-age ideologue staffers making concessions with each other during happy hours on Capital Hill are total nonsense.

And private citizens would never, never act in a capacity resembling the theory called "the deep state", presuming power not vested to them by the rule of law.
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stefano » Tue May 19, 2009 6:50 am

John Crace review Aaranovitch's book:

Voodoo Histories by David Aaranovitch

This book is all the fault of Kevin Jarvis. Kevin was an underling when I was making yet another of my groundbreaking exposes that failed to win the prizes I deserved and was eating my way through a six-course dinner while trying, as usual, to fend off the attentions of ­dozens of attractive young women, when he asked, "Why does ­everyone think you are a ­conceited, ­deluded, not-very-bright New Labour ­apologist?" It was a eureka ­moment. Never ­before had I seen so personally how unsubstantiated rumour could so easily become a global conspiracy theory.

In 1919, the Times published an article based on documents known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which purported to show that the Jews had ­unleashed a plot to take over the world. ­Despite the fact that the ­Protocols were quickly proved to be ­forgeries, it is my contention that the ­Holocaust would never have ­happened if ­Hitler hadn't read them. My ­research has also led me to conclude that the hatred of the Palestinians for the Israelis dates back to the Protocols and that if they hadn't been written, Gaza City would now be a holiday resort.

There were 37 people who thought President Roosevelt had prior warning of the Japanese ­attack on Pearl Harbor but chose to ignore it. This conspiracy theory has been so conclusively ­debunked it now barely merits a footnote, but what no one seems to realise is that it paved the way for the McCarthy anti-communist witch hunts of the 50s and ­latterly for Holocaust deniers, such as David Irving, and it's only thanks to me that the free world can sleep easy today.

Perhaps one of the most ­powerful conspiracies of the 20th century has been the canard that writing a book is difficult. It isn't. You just have to download loads of stuff from the internet, give it your own spin and claim the credit. So let me be the 2,973,171st person to tell you that JFK was not killed by the Mafia and ­Marilyn Monroe was not murdered by ­Martin Luther King. Even today it still amazes me that the whole world – well Mohamed al Fayed and the Daily Express – believes Princess Diana was ­murdered by Prince Philip. She wasn't. She was killed by a fan of Elton John, who wanted to hear a new version of Candle in the Wind.

In the early 1980s, the country was rife with a paranoia about ­nuclear weapons and the sinking of the Belgrano that came to a head with the death of Hilda ­Murrell. The conspiracy theorists had a field day, causing the BBC to make a documentary called In Defence of the Realm, about her death. ­Today, I can reveal for the first time that it was actually only a drama series. Likewise, after yet more exhaustive trawls through the ­cuttings, I can report that The Da Vinci Code was a work of fiction.

Many Americans and David Shayler continue to mistakenly ­believe that the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by David Icke with his star fleet from the Planet Zog, while in Britain the Iraq war ­conspiracies have centred on claims that the weapons ­expert David Kelly was murdered by the ­security services. This is ­nonsense. He killed himself ­because he was utterly ashamed that he had failed to find the weapons of mass destruction that I had told him were there.

Talking of which, you may think the reason I've failed to mention the Dodgy Dossier is because it's one of those awkward conspiracy theories that happens to be true and undermines a lot of my ­previous waffling. Well, the omission is no oversight: I did it deliberately because Tony Blair rang me to let me know there were loads of WMDs and how grateful he was I kept ­going on about how there were loads of WMDs, so it wasn't a conspiracy and I've got nothing to apologise for because I never apologise ­because I'm never wrong – so there.

In a final desperate plea for credibility, I should cite the work of a number of amateur ­psychologists whose research has led them to the breathtakingly obvious ­conclusion that people like ­conspiracy ­theories because it gives them a narrative they can ­believe in. Which is rather more than you will find here.

Digested read, digested: Aaronovitch 0, Aliens 1 (Aaronovitch og)
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby elfismiles » Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:58 pm

Don't think this has been posted yet...

Lexington
Still crazy after all these years
Aug 20th 2009
From The Economist print edition

The perils of losing one's grip on reality

Image
Illustration by KAL

NOT long after the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963, the Senate contemplated a bill to tighten federal control over the sale of guns through the post. Three gun-lovers drove 2,500 miles from Arizona to Washington, DC, to protest. One argued that the bill was part of “a further attempt by a subversive power to make us part of one world socialistic government” and that it could “create chaos” and help “our enemies” to seize power. Not much has changed since Richard Hofstadter described this incident in a hugely influential book, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”. Gun-lovers still argue that the slightest curb on their right to bear arms will make America vulnerable to tyranny. And in other areas, too, the paranoid style is alive and frothing.

Some of Barack Obama’s detractors content themselves with arguing that he is a bad president. Others go further. “Birthers” insist that he was not born in the United States and is therefore constitutionally barred from being president. Yet Mr Obama’s birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, and there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. There is even an announcement of his birth in the archive of the Honolulu Advertiser, a local newspaper. Yet the internet crackles with theories as to how all this was faked so that, 48 years later, Mr Obama could impose a socialist state on America. And a YouGov poll for The Economist found that 26% of Republicans think Mr Obama is probably foreign-born.


Other conspiracy theories about Mr Obama are even loopier. For example, some Americans think he is the Antichrist. The evidence for this, apparently, is that in the Bible Jesus is quoted as predicting that Satan will come down like lightning from heaven, and the words for “lightning” and “heaven” in Hebrew sound a bit like “Barack Obama”. Plus, his presidential limo is nicknamed “The Beast”. For those who think this is too far-fetched, there is the theory that Mr Obama is a closet Nazi. He thinks abortion should be legal. Historically, some abortion advocates have also been eugenicists. Therefore he must be one of them. Also, he wants to discourage smoking. So did Hitler!

Hofstadter, writing at the time of Barry Goldwater’s insurgency, argued that political paranoia—a mix of anger, heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy—was most evident on the extreme right. And there are plenty of examples of right-wingers peddling nutty tales. Isolationists in the 1940s accused Franklin Roosevelt of deliberately letting the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour to provide an excuse for war. Talk-radio crackpots in the 1990s accused the Clintons of having Vince Foster, a depressive friend of theirs who killed himself, murdered.

But the left is hardly immune to such fantasies. Some people, including Mr Obama’s own former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, believe that AIDS was cooked up by the government to kill blacks. A staggering 18% of Americans think that the government of George Bush probably knew in advance about the attacks of September 11th 2001 but allowed them to proceed anyway. Some even contend that Mr Bush orchestrated the attacks himself, to create an excuse for invading Iraq. To believe this, you have to believe that the Bushies were both wicked enough to murder thousands of Americans and brilliant enough to execute such a mind-bogglingly sophisticated plot without a single leak—in a culture where Richard Nixon could not even hush up a burglary.

Belief in conspiracy theories can be comforting. If everything that goes wrong is the fault of a secret cabal, that relieves you of the tedious necessity of trying to understand how a complex world really works. And you can feel smug that you are smart enough to “see through” the official version of events. But widespread paranoia has drawbacks. For a start, it makes calm, rational debate rather tricky. How can you discuss the trade-offs of health-care reform, for example, with someone who thinks the government is plotting to kill grandma? It does not help, either, that politicians on both sides are willing to fan the flames. Sarah Palin calls Mr Obama’s health-care proposals “evil”. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, calls the protesters who loudly oppose them “evil-mongers”. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, calls them “un-American”.

It’s serious
In his book “Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History”, David Aaronovitch argues that conspiratorial fantasy can have dangerous real-world consequences. Hitler read and believed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a bogus account of a global Jewish conspiracy. So did the founders of Hamas. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a bomb in Oklahoma in 1995 because he thought the federal government was hatching various dastardly plots.

Some people watch the ferment at town-hall meetings in America today and worry that another Oklahoma-style atrocity is brewing. A few protesters are waving placards wishing for Mr Obama’s death. Others are ostentatiously wearing firearms outside his rallies. A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Centre describes an uptick in the number of “Patriot” militia groups since Mr Obama’s election and frets that some could turn violent.

One should not exaggerate such threats. The Secret Service does not let gun-wielding protesters too near the president. And the vast majority of people who visit crazy websites will never hurt anyone. But there is no cause for complacency, either. Politicians should tone down the rhetoric. Protesters should read some history before making Hitler comparisons. Talk-show hosts should stop pretending that paranoid nitwits are asking reasonable questions. If people are continually told that their government is plotting against them, a few may decide to fight back. And as Lee Harvey Oswald showed, even one man with a violent sense of grievance can do a lot of harm.


Economist.com/blogs/lexington
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=14258768
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby OP ED » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:42 am

Isolationists in the 1940s accused Franklin Roosevelt of deliberately letting the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour to provide an excuse for war.


i'm pretty sure the Courts Martial established this as a fact in 1948.

talk about learning to read history...
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:16 pm

David Aaronvitch was involved in Socialist International, is great friends with Peter Mandleson, is alleged to have MI5/6 connections. Strangely, he writes articles that seem to call for 'understanding' of pedophiles.
He comes from a certain vein of pinko douchebag(*) for whom 'thinking for oneself' can be 'dangerous'. Yes, that is a word you will often read in his writing. Such an such an idea is... "DANGEROUS".

He really is like a cross between Peter Keating and Elsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead (Mandy is 100% Toohey)

"I play the Stock Market of the human Spirit - and I sell short"

If the Stasi were introduced in the UK - he would write about how there has always been a need for it and how resistance to it would be "DANGEROUS".


(*) It dishonours people like Salvador Allende to call him socialist.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby n0x23 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:39 pm

The majority of this discussion focuses on 9/11 and JFK, the Truthers vs. the Debunkers and just like any other debate regarding these two issues it simply dissolves into an aether of static and white noise, due to the fact that neither side has what the other side considers definitive proof, it's all just rhetoric and conjecture.

So what about Waco?

Is that just another "conspiracy theory" about the US Government that's easily dismissed, or the smoking body...er...ah, I mean gun?

Waco: The Rules of Engagement


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6765137779810391299&ei=GxOcSrHMDYyUqAOZ6YytBw&q=waco+the+rules+of+engagement&hl=en&client=firefox-a

A couple of my favorite parts are during a press conference, the reporters are asking questions of the FBI's Spokesman and the question is asked about the use of Psychological Warfare on the Davidians and the Spokesman claims that he has no idea what Psychological Warfare is, then when questioned further about it, the FBI shining lights on the compound all night and playing loud music and sound of animals being slaughtered 24 hrs a day, the FBI guy gets real serious and demands they he will NOT discuss tactics at this time.

Also, the phone conversations between David and the FBI negotiator regarding the helicopters shooting at them, the negotiator claims that there's no guns aboard the helicopters, until Koresh persists forcing the negotiator to back-track so far...well, you just have to watch it.
n0x23
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:11 pm

Where do people get the idea that following and investigating conspiracies diverts you from being active? Why is this always presented as an either or thing, as if being active and the investigation of conspiracies are somehow mutually exclusive?

In fact it appears that it's the conspiracy investigators that are more active than anyone else. They're with Sheehan, where is Code Pink? They confront politicians and distribute the videos, they flood forums, they're tenacious, they launch blogs, news sites, they get on TV, raise money for their candidates and they are more likely to get in your face.

You may not like them, but no, being a conspiracy theorist actually means that you are more likely to be active than your standard 'progressive' or standard 'conservative'.
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby teamdaemon » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:10 pm

David Rockefeller wrote:"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."


To call it a conspiracy "theory" requires extreme ignorance or outright lying, or both. When the perpetrators announce themselves publicly, clearly unashamed of what they are doing, and begin looting the country, those who point this out are vilified by having their sanity questioned. They continue to steal money hand over fist to this very day, and probably will continue to do so for the next 8 years and beyond.
teamdaemon
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Conspiracy Theories Drain Our Political Energy, Lead Now

Postby freemason9 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:04 pm

KeenInsight wrote:
8bitagent wrote:
Oh wait, here's another zinger from the article...in case you already wanted to vomit:

John Kennedy really was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.

We know Oswald's motive. He was a lonely and troubled kid who, as Aaronovitch puts it, "defected to Russia in 1961 hoping to discover a better form of society - and discovered instead the Soviet Union." When he returned to America, he was bitter and angry, and determined that the only solution left was to tear down all forms of authority. He wanted to build an anarchistic society "without any centralized state whatsoever." All the endless theories that he couldn't have done it melt on examination. Take the nonsense of the "magic bullet": Aaronovitch talks the reader through how it has been shown by scientists studying the Zapruder footage to be not just possible but highly probable that Oswald's shots were responsible.


Bollocks!

The "magic bullet" was actually the nonsense of the Warren Commission! What kind of journalism is this where critical thinking is not allowed? Garbage.


Careful there. Don't apply different standards to the theories. Use rational thinking, and stick to the guidelines for theoretical testing. Although I strongly doubt the Warren Commission (it most certainly isn't the whole story), it is as plausible as anything else insofar as applicable testing goes. This probably won't be a statement well-met, but I think it's true enough.
The real issue is that there is extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby freemason9 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:06 pm

OP ED wrote:"theory" ????


Yes, absolutely, and probably not even rising to the rigors of that definition. Closer, I think, to hypothesis.
The real issue is that there is extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests