So, you believe in Conspiracy Theories, do you?...

There's a thread about the reply to this article, but I didn't see the original article posted. Here it is:

So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto



Sid

a magic leprechaun in the garden. Some people just refuse to see it.

..seriously...





:sarcasm:

Everyone knows that.

They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By sheer chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

for anyone watching British TV, it's a must read.

I certainly don't believe the official one. That'd be stupid! :eyes:

First off, I strongly object to the term "conspiracy theory," a rhetorical term commonly used to lump together blatantly ridiculous claims (such as David Icke's reptilians or the claim that no planes hit the Twin Towers) with more reasonable suspicions about possible government wrongdoing.

For example, on the very first day of the Iraq war, I immediately concluded that the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" most likely didn't exist. That was a "conspiracty theory," on my part, until such time as mainstream journalists and members of Congress began voicing the same opinion.

Denunciations of "conspiracy theory" promote a political and cultural climate in which people are afraid to voice skepticism about official claims lest they be labeled crazy, in much the same way that the Soviet Union regarded many dissidents as mentally ill. Sid, do you wish to promote such a political and cultural climate?

It's fine to critique nonsensical claims. But the label "conspiracy theory" is a cheap and dangerously anti-democratic rhetorical ploy.

For more about this issue, please see the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.

Anyhow, in response to the article you quoted:



Some hypotheses require larger conspiracies than others. By no means do all alternative hypotheses about 9/11 require a "huge" conspiracy.

On the other hand, the official 9/11 story does involve a pretty large conspiracy on the part of Al Qaeda folks, at least some of whom the CIA had already been aware of for a while. And that, in itself, is a good reason to suspect that at least a few people in the U.S. government may have known more in advance about the 9/11 plot than anyone has publicly admitted so far.



I don't consider Loose Change to be authoritative. As an introductory video on the need for a new and independent investigation of 9/11, I would recommend 9/11: Press for Truth. I would then recommend studying http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project">The Complete 9/11 Timeline. Of course, one should also read the official reports, such as the http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm">9/11 Commission Report, so as to be able to critique them intelligently.

They are mostly based on some kind of conspiracy taking place.
If they proposed a different collapse initiation mechanism that was not based on a conspiracy I don't think we would call them conspiracy theorists even if it was a silly one.

You may be upset because of the negative connotations of the term conspiracy theory but it IS an accurate descriptor.

Yes, most alternative theories about 9/11 involve, or at least imply, hypothetical conspiracies.

But what, precisely, do you mean by the term "conspiracy theory"? Please provide your precise definition. For more about the multiple meanings of the term, please see the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.

Anyhow, do you see the anti-democratic implications of the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" has the negative connotations that it does? As I http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216532">explained in my previous post here, the result is a culture in which it is socially unacceptable for people to have suspicions about possible government wrongdoing. Is that result a good thing?

That cultural result is why I object to the "conspiracy theory" meme. What do you think of that cultural consequence?

"the result is a culture in which it is socially unacceptable for people to have suspicions about possible government wrongdoing."

I do not think that is the case. Their is a TON of criticism of the government and legitimate suspicion of it. The negative connotations come in when you start talking about huge conspiracies.

As for 'my' definition. I don't think I am entitled to my own definition. It is a theory that involves a significant conspiracy.

Yes, yes, as I stated I know this has a negative connotation. But I am not sure that connotation is entirely unwarranted. Furthermore even if you accept some other definition I think many 9-11 'truther' ideas clearly fit in the realm of conspiracy theory.

Frankly many of them fall in a category that might be labled 'tin foil hatter', or 'completely ignorant dullard being bat-shit crazy'.

If you where talking about 'gee the government could have done more prior to 9-11 about xyz' you would probably hear agreement not 'conspiracy theory' as that isn't even a conspiracy theory.

When you hear people who have no idea what they are talking about claim their where no planes, and the buildings where demolished with explosives... then I don't think the negative connotation is unwarranted, and yes that is a conspiracy theory.

it's "were" not "where"! Did you fail in English class? :eyes: Are we supposed to take you seriously? Not likely!

... of a certain official-story defender (not you) who is in the habit of dismissing other people's posts via spelling flames.

I jumped to a conclusion that may have been wrong. I just hate it when my poor English skills (or anyone else's) are the focus of responses rather than the point they are making.
It turns out you can be terrible at grammar, spelling, typing, etc. and still have very valid points to make. This is a forum not a journal submission.

Anyway, If I was wrong I apologize to WildBill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216569">Realityhack wrote, quoting me:



What, in your view, makes a suspicion "legitimate"?

Perhaps "possible government wrongdoing" was a somewhat overly broad term for what I had in mind. Obviously, I'm talking about suspicions of government wrongdoing involving more than one wrongdoer. Primarily I have in mind things like wrongdoing by intelligence agencies, and also political shenanigans like Watergate.



How huge is too "huge," in your view?

Also, consider the once-secret misdeeds of the Bush administration that are now public knowledge, such as torture. Didn't that involve a rather large conspiracy? What about past major misdeed of various other administrations, such as Iran-Contra?

As for alternative hypotheses about 9/11, some involve a "huge conspiracy," and others don't. But all get dismissed with the label "conspiracy theory."



What do you mean by "significant" here?

Anyhow, different people do have different definitions of the term "conspiracy theory." Here on DU, for example, see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105407&mesg_id=105710">this old post by Lithos and the sub-thread following http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2493039&mesg_id=2495723">this old post by HamdenRice.



If one is even open to the possibility of LIHOP, rather than dogmatically insisting that any and all failures must be due solely to incompetence, that's "conspiracy theory" too, though much more reasonable than, say, the claim that no planes hit the Towers. (Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the truth lies somewhere between negligence and LIHOP.)



Whether or not the negative connotations are deserved for a particular theory, the use of the label "conspiracy theory" for that purpose sets a politically deleterious precedent.

For more about this, please see also the excellent old thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3484782&mesg_id=3484782">When someone labels another person's ideas as a Conspiracy Theory, as well as the recent thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.

I don't recall any instances of the claim that higher level individuals in the intelligence community ordered torture being referred to as a conspiracy theory to dismiss it.
Could be I just missed them but I seem to remember this being widely viewed as a fairly legitimate line of inquiry.

Legitimate may have been a poor word choice. I think the sentence stands if you remove it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216721">Realityhack wrote:



There were indeed some instances of various aspects of the scandal being dismissed that way, at least temporarily, until those aspects were publicly admitted to by officials. For example, according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jan/19/uk.terrorism">The Guardian (U.K.), Thursday January 19, 2006:



(I vaguely recall other such instances too, but can't find find them offhand via Google.)

Admittedly there weren't very many such dismissals, because, if I recall correctly, the CIA's torture of detainees wasn't something that very many people "theorized" about in the first place before it was officially admitted to.

However, it certainly was a conspiracy - and a pretty large-scale one.

as no one is truly the color black nor white, and I feel using such polarizing terms has dangerously anti-social implications. We are all different shades of the same color.

Popular usage is a bitch.

because prosecutions under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act presume the existence of ogranized criminal conspiracies.

Thanks for letting us know that no such conspiracies can exist.

I'm sure the FBI will be relieved!

Don't hurt yerself with that dangerous wit.

or engage in rational discussion. All they have to do is heckle.

Hamden.

In addition I think it is blatantly false. Wile examples exist of all 'sides' of the discussion avoiding rational debate I think in general the so called 'OCTbots' (insulting people as a 'debate' tactic much lately?) have been perfectly willing to engage in rational debate. In my experience even more willing than many 'truthers'.

I think the generalization is unfair to throw at any 'side', though particular individuals may engage in that behavior and individual posts may be non-nonsensical.

Oh, what am I saying? My subject line supposes that an OCTer could be even handed -- eg in evaluating and pointing out which posts are not helpful.

My bad.

I agree on post 16 but someone already asked for clarification. You then jumped in with an unhelpful broad brush attack.

of the article.

And how/why was HamdenRice's post irrelevant to that point?

Your latest post is way too vague to clarify anything at all.

Anyhow, it seems to me that highly ambiguous, rhetorically charged terms like "conspiracy theory" inevitably lead to people talking past each other, each side missing what the other side considers to be key points.

criminal conspiracies don't exist. Any implication of that fact is stretching the truth beyond reason.

The author is implicitly referring to those theories held in popular culture such as the JFK assassination and now the 9-11 attacks. Those that have no positive evidence, just negative speculation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=217301">vincent_vega_lives wrote:



Don't you see a problem, then, with the use of "conspiracy theory" as a term of a prieri dismissal? If conspiracies exist, then theories involving conspiracies are not necessarily wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216561">HamdenRice's post was clearly sarcastic. I don't think his actual point was to claim that official-story defenders deny the existence of any conspiracies whatsoever. More likely, his actual point was to object to "conspiracy theory" as a term of a prieri dismissal.

If a particular theory is wrong, then clearer language than the term "conspiracy theory" can and should be used to categorize what is wrong with the theory.

For example, if one is going to object to a category of theories on the grounds that they involve too big a conspiracy, then "grand conspiracy theory" is better than just plain "conspiracy theory" for that purpose. Ten years ago, the online skeptical community made that distinction rather than simply vilifying "conspiracy theories" in general, as it more commonly does now. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216184">my post about the 1997 sci.skeptic FAQ in the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.)

You also wrote, about the article quoted in the O.P.:



If the objection is that there is (allegedly) no positive evidence for a particular theory, then why not simply say that? Again, why use "conspiracy theory" as a term of a priori dismissal, given that real conspiracies do exist?

There was a friggen movie named "Conspiracy Theory" for heavens sake.

I'm afraid my hope for you is dwindling fast. I was impressed at first by your rational and posting demeanor, but I am fast realizing you are one of them.

... at least when in conversation with me.

I'm not the only one here who gripes about it, by the way.

On edit: As for the remainder of your post, Hope2006 has made a good comment http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x217527#217529">here.

after reconsideration. :rofl:

For one good response, please see the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11">Who knows what happened on 9/11? Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether you or I, or Charlie Brooker, are inclined to believe it or not by Dan Hind, guardian.co.uk - Comment is free, Thursday July 17, 2008, discussed here on DU in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216445&mesg_id=216445">this thread.

I believe it IS the issue.

... by the combination of Philip Zelikow's conflicts of interest and Kean's and Hamilton's go-easy approach.

That much is hardly controversial. Even most (if not all) of the die-hard official-story defenders around here admit that much.

People around here differ on whether and to what extent they care about the above. The main thing people around here differ on is whether they care enough to call for a more truly independent follow-up commission.

People around here differ on other things too.

Also, people who hold a given category of viewpoint vary widely in their attitudes, personalities, and how they think.

Therefore, the O.P.'s attempts at mass psychoanalysis are an utterly ridiculous evasion.

(whats THIS kook talking about??)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8606775579091227676&q=dwight+eisenhower+last+speech&ei=j5CISMaxC4SC4wKK_9WTCA&hl=en

secrecy doesn't exist... ideas and motivations that exist 'behind' what you and I see everyday is simply impossible. All governments and the people they work with are (and have always been) completely transparent - nothing happens without the publics knowledge, or for that matter, their consent.

If something were 'hidden' from view -- or severely obscured -- it would eventually leak in full unmuddied truth for all to see, right?

How many people worked on the (secret) Manhattan Project again? How long was the Stealth Bomber kept under wraps? Where do the trillions of dollars that seem to slip away when the Pentagon announces its yearly budget?

I do

Because history repeats itself.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

~ William Colby,

CIA Director from Sept. 1973 to Jan. 1976 under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
Colby was replaced by future President George H.W. Bush on January 30, 1976.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

~ William Casey,

CIA Director from 1981 to 1987.

(Quote from internal staff meeting notes 1981)

Casey headed up the successful presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and served on the transition team following the election. After Reagan took office, he named Casey to the post of Director of the CIA.

According to a 600-page report by the CIA inspector general, Frederick Hintz, the CIA under Casey was complicit in the Contras' massive narco-trafficking operation which resulted in the crack epidemic.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Psy ops at various levels of secrecy are a fact. Even presidents and Congress are kept in the dark about certain groups and their machinations. Start reading up on your history.

History: How the US Government Was Overthrown In Three Easy Steps