Conspiracy Theories
THE PURPOSE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES=85revised December 10, 2007
We all know that conspiracies exist. There is ample indisputable
historical proof in such matters as: Watergate, Enron, tobacco and
drug companies suppressing adverse data about health-related
consequences of their products, the Mafia, military-scandals such as
Tailhook, Abu Ghraib, Haditha; military academy cheating, criminal
prosecutions of politicians and law enforcement or correctional
officers who lied under oath to protect themselves or others, the KKK,
the CPUSA, etc.
Political conspiracy theories arise most often when the "official
version=94 of events seems inadequate, flawed, or incomplete.
But the entire purpose of most political conspiracy theories is NOT to
carefully present evidence and use reason and logic to arrive at
sound, verifiable conclusions. Instead, most political conspiracy
theories are primarily an intellectual device by which individuals and
organizations identify and demonize their perceived enemies whom they
propose to vanquish.
There is a distinction between perceiving an "opponent" (i.e. an
honorable, decent, and legitimate competitor--albeit wrong-headed from
one's own perspective) versus an "enemy" (i.e. someone characterized
in terms calculated to evoke fear, contempt, suspicion, distrust, and
revulsion.)
Most conspiracy theories focus upon enemies, not on opponents. One's
receptivity to logic and evidence diminishes drastically when one
confronts "enemies" as opposed to "opponents".
The substantive content of a political conspiracy theory is often
completely irrelevant to the underlying purpose of the theory and, in
any event, there is no possible way to refute or disprove most such
theories to the satisfaction of its authors or adherents because most
political conspiracy theories are constructed to be self-sealing so
that contradictory data can be instantly dismissed, ignored, or de-
valued. The reason is because the theory functions as a problem-
solving device but the actual =93problem=94 has virtually nothing to do
with the details regarding people and events which are part of the
conspiratorial narrative.
The actual =93problem=94 which political conspiracy theories seek to
address is explaining one=92s sense of impotence---i.e. providing
plausible reasons for why one=92s values, ideas, policy preferences, and
political candidates seem to be repeatedly ignored, disparaged,
violated, or defeated =96 particularly over long periods of time.
Consequently, the conspiracy theory expresses the rage felt when a
person perceives himself or his group as persistent =93losers=94 in all
matters of im****tance.
Therefore, the conspiracy theory functions as a =93rolodex=94 of people
and organizations who should not be permitted to have a place at the
table, because =93they=94 despoil our country, =93they=94 defile its true
values, and =93they=94 plan to rob us of our heritage and =93they=94 seek
to=
make impotence a permanent feature of our lives.
That=92s the reason why a political conspiracy theory can never be
refuted---because it does not rely upon the individual facts,
assertions, or conclusions which make up the literal text of the
theory. Instead, it is a primal scream against perceived villains
whom are thought to have ruined our society or whom are working toward
destroying our individual sovereignty.
The BEST conspiracy theories combine kernels of indisputable fact with
less compelling data (and often outright falsehoods). The kernels of
fact make political conspiracy theories alluring.
However, there are NO TESTS which authors and believers of a theory
will allow IF such tests have the genuine capacity to disprove their
theory.
Conspiracy theories are usually authored by persistent losers in
public policy debates to account for why those persons are frustrated
and seemingly impotent to affect public policy decisions and elections
over long periods of time.
ALL societies (except those in the midst of civil war) have a
prevailing point of view. Somebody always winds up "losing" a policy
debate or an election and, consequently, they are not invited to the
table to make im****tant decisions. Conspiracy proponents often
declare that their "battle" was =93lost decades ago" or they declare an
imminent expiration date for the existence of our country if our
=93brainwashed=94 fellow countrymen do not =93wake up=94 and recognize the
danger confronting us.
Anger and frustration is a normal human response to feelings of
endless impotence. Conspiracy theories "solve" the underlying problem
by explaining WHY one perceives oneself as powerless, disrespected,
unappreciated, and ignored. It=92s really very simple---malevolent
powerful beings, working in secret, are responsible.
In my experience, I've found most conspiracy advocates to be
profoundly anti-intellectual---even though they may simultaneously
produce reams of what they consider "proof" and "evidence" for their
point of view.
Conspiracy authors almost never concede even the hypothetical
possibility that their paradigm might be flawed in some fundamental
respect. Furthermore, conspiracy authors/researchers don't simply
allege that a critic or skeptic is mistaken in their viewpoint.
Instead, they almost always assert that critics or skeptics facilitate
the success of evil cabals who consciously are working to destroy our
way of life.
In short, conspiracy believers proclaim that their interpretation is
not just intellectually superior to other interpretations, but theirs
is the ONLY interpretation possible and any disagreements are the
result of morally and intellectually defective beings---who are,
perhaps, even agents of the conspiracy!
Similarly, conspiracy believers usually declare that every issue or
controversy is susceptible to only one correct interpretation and,
furthermore, our public policy options are limited to only one correct
position---which, =93coincidentally=94 always conforms to the conspiracy
believer=92s personal political preferences.
Typically, conspiracy adherents will entertain questions and comments
about their theory only so long as their fundamental premises and
conclusions are not challenged. Rigorous critiques are instantly
perceived as hostile attacks by hopelessly na=EFve, ignorant, or
=93brainwashed=94 individuals---or, perhaps, =93smears=94 initiated by
=93agents=94 of the conspiracy who are seeking to =93divert=94 attention
awa=
y
from themselves and thus "waste" time and resources in =93pointless=94
intellectual debates or =93disinformation=94 campaigns.
Furthermore, conspiracy believers are pre-disposed to believing the
worst possible motives regarding their adversaries. Consequently,
conspiracy proponents often arrive at conclusions without asking their
perceived adversaries a single question.
Conspiracy advocates often assert that their fellow countrymen cannot
be relied upon to understand events and make correct decisions. Why
not? Because they believe that vast numbers of their countrymen have
been =93brainwashed=94 and =93cannot think for themselves=94. In their
sche=
me
of things, only conspiracy believers are able to recognize and escape
from the clever mind-tricks and ulterior motives of their adversaries.
There are two methods of discussing or analyzing political conspiracy
theories:
(1) Philosophical discussion (i.e mostly speculation)
(2) Evaluation of factual evidence
(1) PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION
Such discussions may be valuable, relevant, and fun ... but, in the
final analysis, they are primarily speculative in nature and do not
rise above the level of casual conversation.
In this approach, everyone's ideas are considered just as relevant or
valuable as anybody else=92s. There is asserted to be a moral and
practical equivalence to virtually every assertion made and,
consequently, nothing in dispute can be resolved.
In this approach, each participant brings his/her familiarity and
understanding of many different information sources to bear upon the
discussion =96 without being prepared to substantiate anything.
Questions are asked, statements are made, tentative conclusions may be
presented, but nobody expects verifiable do***entation or
substantiation of each and every point raised nor does anyone
seriously expect to resolve every disputed idea or assertion.
(2) FACT-BASED RESEARCH, STUDY, ANALYSIS
This approach is much more labor-intensive because careful research
and analysis is required. In this approach...
=B7 specific assertions or statements are made
=B7 the truth or falsity of each assertion or statement must be
determined
=B7 any do***entation provided must be reviewed and then
verified to establish that it is factually accurate, truthful, and
germane to the discussion
=B7 truthful assertions and statements must then be evaluated,
weighed for im****tance, relevance, or emphasis
=B7 factual data is combined to form arguments or theories
=B7 those arguments and theories must then be evaluated to
assure they don't exceed whatever factual evidence has thus far been
discovered
=B7 standard rules of logic and evidence must be applied =96 in
other words, one has to understand the qualitative difference between
primary and secondary sources of evidence and one must have a general
familiarity with the principles of sound logic, i.e. how to recognize
and avoid (or refute) fallacious arguments
=B7 material presented as direct quotations must, in fact, be
quotations not paraphrases or subjective interpretations
=B7 credible conclusions or assertions cannot be based upon
gossip, rumor, hearsay, anecdotes, half-truths, gross exaggerations,
personal prejudice, malice, or outright falsehoods
=B7 in addition, there must be recognition that, sometimes,
available evidence may be incomplete, ambiguous, or incapable of being
verified. Normally there is recognition that honorable and
intelligent people may arrive at fundamentally different
interpretations of whatever data is under scrutiny
=B7 one has to recognize the difference between innocent errors
versus intentional acts of omission and commission. The latter
category would include such matters as=85
o deliberate misquotation or paraphrasing so as to change the
original author=92s intended meaning
o biased selection of evidence in order to discredit someone
o suppression of pertinent data
o inability to provide high-quality evidence when making highly
pejorative accusations
The =93problem=94 with the =93fact-based=94 route of inquiry is that such
evidence may not be convenient or helpful to the conspiracy theory
under scrutiny.
Consequently, like all fiction-writers, the conspiracy author wants to
be free to fabricate his villains, put words into their mouth and
thoughts into their head, and then control the plot and ultimate
outcome of the story --- all without being held responsible or
accountable for any unkind or untrue statements and conclusions.
As previously mentioned, political conspiracy theories are problem-
solving devices. They exist solely to offer an hypothesis for why
persons and groups perceived as noxious enemies to the commonweal
have, nevertheless, been successful and predominant over long periods
of time in achieving power, influence, status, and wealth.
Such theories are often created by the "losers" in public policy
debates---particularly if the losers have rarely (or never) been
successful in influencing or determining public policy over long
periods of time.
The hypothesis of "losers" is as follows:
It is inconceivable that the same person(s) and group(s) could
repeatedly prevail in elections and policy debates and thus wield
power and influence over long periods of time (plus ac***ulate
pur****tedly undeserved wealth, status, awards, and honors) without the
reason being some underlying and ongoing corruption of political
processes.
=46rom the "losers" perspective, the simple =93law of averages=94 should
produce periodic sustained and decisive victories for their personal
political preferences (i.e. candidates and policies) and,
consequently, they (the perennial losers) should have a roughly equal
impact upon shaping the public debate and winning political contests.
The fundamental flaw in this argument is simply that there is no
applicable formula from history or logic that would help us establish
typical or average rates of "success" or "favorable results" with
respect to political contests, policy debates, elections, measurements
of power, influence, wealth, awards, and honors.
In other words, there is no pre-existing norm or baseline that can be
used for comparison purposes in order to determine when one prevailing
viewpoint has exceeded "the norm" -- because there is NO norm!
Just like, for example, there is no known formula or baseline for
s****ts team competition.
If the Boston Red Sox do not win a world series for 86 years (!) does
that mean "a conspiracy" must have been responsible, i.e. some secret
agreement by corrupt persons to prevent Boston from winning the world
series or from even reaching the final playoffs?
Why? Because "the law of averages" should have produced a world series
win long before 86 years had elapsed? Because "chance" could not
possibly account for such a long period of failure? Because random,
unintended, or unpredictable events or cir***stances could not
possibly apply to such a long period of failure in competitive
contests?
To test a hypothesis, one must create an experiment. But what
experiment can serve as a conclusive test for a political conspiracy
theory and thus hypothetically permit its falsification?
One begins by asking a question:
"What will give me one result if my hypothesis is true but a different
result if my hypothesis is false?
Experiments must then be designed to find out whether or not
predictions made are correct.
For example, suppose the printer connected to your computer stops
working. You form a tentative hypothesis that there is something wrong
with the cable connecting the printer to the computer. If your
hypothesis is correct, then if you replace the cable with a working
cable, the printer should work again.
You perform an experiment by borrowing a friend's PC cable and hooking
it up in place of your own. Suppose your printer worked after you
installed the friend's PC cable.
Does that "prove" your hypothesis that your own cable was defective?
Not necessarily! Perhaps, your cable was fine but just loose. Or
perhaps there was some dust interfering with the cable connection and
simply removing the cable eliminated the underlying dust problem.
There could even be other explanations. So how does a researcher
determine, conclusively, the answer?
CONSPIRACY =93SCHOLAR****P=94 =96 part 1
Political conspiracy theories involve infinitely more complex
possibilities than PC cable problems. First, there are huge numbers of
both known (and unknown) interactions between and among scores or
hundreds or thousands of human beings. How does an honest researcher
recognize and appropriately analyze/weigh the numerous complexities
and variables of human behavior and motivations?
Conspiracy theorists rarely have personal contact with the persons or
organizations they perceive and write about as "conspirators".
Consequently, they are in the position of making final, definitive
judgments about character, integrity, patriotism and motives from long-
distance. But because they start from a =93loser=92s=94 perspective, they
are usually pre-disposed to believing the worst possible motives and
explanations!
Furthermore, conspiracy "scholar****p" suffers from several major
anomalies that normally are considered markers for irrational,
illogical, or non-factual conclusions.
In the history of modern political conspiracy arguments, there rarely
has been peer review (for example: no journals created to facilitate
debate by differing schools of thought), no acknowledgement of
substantive error by any author, and no attempt to refute alternative
conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theorists ask us to believe that they are uniquely
insightful even while, simultaneously, they seem unable or unwilling
to apply to their own writings the normal, customary scholarly methods
and practices which routinely apply to other fields of inquiry. One
wonders why this is the case?
There is something remarkably peculiar about many (perhaps most) books
which right-wing conspiracy believers produce.
1. First, there is almost always no independent research.
In almost no case, does the conspiracy author indicate any direct
contact with the persons and organizations he writes about. No
interviews. No correspondence. No emails. No phone conversations. No
questions posed. No archival research. Nothing.
For example: W. Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen (in their respective
books, The ****d Capitalist and None Dare Call It Conspiracy) relied
heavily upon Dr. Carroll Quigley's research as re****ted in his 1966
book entitled, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time.
Both Allen and Skousen quote extensively from or rely upon Quigley=92s
book. Conspiracy adherents have used Allen and Skousen for decades as
=93proof=94 for whatever theory they wish to circulate.
However, neither Skousen or Allen reviewed the primary source
do***ents upon which Quigley based his conclusions and which he cited
in his book.
Consequently, neither Skousen or Allen are in a position to
(a) confirm that references cited by Quigley are accurate and
truthful OR
(b) ascertain whether or not Quigley overlooked relevant material
which could lend itself to a different interpretation from what
Quigley presented OR
(c) decide whether or not Quigley placed too much emphasis on, or gave
too much credence to, data in do***ents which he saw
=B7 Furthermore, neither Skousen or Allen ever contacted Quigley
to ask questions about his research, or to request copies of do***ents
relevant to their own writings, or to inquire into other aspects of
the subject matter they considered to be of critical im****tance.
=B7 Neither Skousen or Allen did any seminal research of their
own into other archival material pertaining to their subject matter.
Instead, they both just make extensive use of secondary sources, i.e.
they both just repeat assertions made by other persons.
Bill McIlhany (a Birch Society author) has correctly pointed out the
limitations of using secondary sources in his opus, Evidence of a
Master Conspiracy:
=93The trouble with secondary sources is that they really are no
stronger than the primary or contem****ary do***entation they contain.
If you're reading a book written by someone today about the French
Revolution of over two hundred years ago, and it says that it was
caused by some particular historical force or movement, you have no
way of knowing whether that is true unless you can examine the
evidence put forth for the claim.
The fact that a secondary source makes a statement about something
only proves one thing: that that book or article made that statement.
If you want to be critical in your thinking (it's always good, as the
Bible says, to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good),
you certainly need to test anything which you encounter. One way of
doing that is to know whether or not the secondary source has any
do***entation. When you get a secondary historical account what's the
first thing you do? You can look to see if it has any footnotes or
bibliography=85Is the book quoting simply from people who already agree
with the thesis that the book is presenting or is it going back to
more primary material?=94
2. Second, if you check a representative sample of books authored by
conspiracy proponents, there are two remarkable anomalies, as follows:
(a) IF there are any bibliographic footnotes, they often are
predominantly secondary sources instead of primary sources. In
addition, the secondary sources often merely express personal opinions
or interpretations.
Sometimes the footnotes turn out to be editorials, opinion columnists,
letters-to-the-editor, or gossip columns in newspapers. In many other
cases, the footnotes consist of material inserted into the
Congressional Record without the author ever checking the accuracy of
the original source! [See, for example, John Stormer=92s classic, None
Dare Call it Treason.]
Consider the following specific example:
On page 69 of None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, he writes:
"According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949:
'Today, it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the
old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of
Bolshevism in Russia.' "
The clear implication is that Allen is quoting from a news re****t by a
reputable major city daily newspaper -- perhaps even an interview with
John Schiff about his grandfather.
However, in reality, the "quotation" used by Gary Allen actually
appears in that newspaper=92s society gossip column by pseudonym "Cholly
Knickerbocker"!! This is the type and quality of do***entation which
"historian" Gary Allen thinks is sufficiently credible. But how many
of his readers would ever bother to check his reference??
(b) Genuine scholars and researchers routinely include
"acknowledgements" and "notes" pages in their books. By contrast,
conspiracy advocates almost never include such pages. In fact, before
writing this article I quickly reviewed a couple dozen conspiracy
books in my collection. NONE have an acknowledgements page. There is a
reason for this! Why is that omission significant?
What is the purpose and significance of acknowledgements and/or notes
pages?
(i) First, they summarize the institutions and persons upon whom the
author relied for research assistance. This gives the reader an idea
of the extent, nature, and quality of the author's research, i.e. was
he/she cognizant of the work done by other researchers and scholars
plus was he/she aware of (and did he/she use) the major primary
sources which exist? If not, why not?
(ii) Did the author consult any NEW sources which have never been
previously utilized --- thus producing fresh insights?
Example: During the past 10-15 years there has been a major upsurge in
books which have explored the history of the postwar conservative and
anti-communist movements in the U.S. (many started out as doctoral
dissertations) and those books have often utilized new sources which
never previously informed the judgments of other authors.
Frequently, for example, scholars have done extensive research into
previously unavailable or little-known archives of private papers and/
or oral histories of persons and organizations which directly bear
upon whatever topics they discuss. In other cases, the author has
interviewed, for the first time, key players in controversial matters--
and has obtained unique insights from those interviews. In yet other
instances, the author has obtained first-time-released do***ents via
FOIA requests.
(iii) Acknowledgment and notes pages often identify persons whom the
author asked to review first drafts of the book (or perhaps specific
chapters) in order to correct errors and suggest avenues for further
research which the author may have overlooked.
Why is this im****tant?
Because genuine scholars and independent researchers value critiques
by knowledgeable independent sources. Such evaluations (before
publication) help to reduce errors of fact, interpretation, and
judgment.
(iv) When applicable, research grants which made the research
possible are identified. Funding may be im****tant because an author
might be unwilling to contradict the premises and conclusions favored
by the sources of his/her funds.
The complete absence of acknowledgements and notes pages in many
conspiracy books is an indication that these folks depend exclusively
upon the workings of their own mind. In short, there is no check-and-
balance mechanism in place to recognize, acknowledge, and correct
error.
CONSPIRACY =93SCHOLAR****P=94 -- part 2
As we consider all of the numerous right-wing political theories in
circulation, how do we choose which particular theory to believe?
Many times these theories have mutually exclusive propositions. In
other words, the theories cannot all be true simultaneously---but none
of their respective adherents is prepared to acknowledge that their
preferred theory is erroneous.
In an interview regarding the writings of Gary Allen and W. Cleon
Skousen, Dr. Carroll Quigley made the following comment about his own
research:
"I may be correct or I may be mistaken..."
Which conspiracy believer(s) (either an individual or the entire
conspiratorial school of thought that individual represents) has ever
acknowledged the possibility that they might be entirely "mistaken"?
In other words, would a Bircher ever say about their CFR/New World
Order theory: "I may be correct or I may be mistaken"? How about a
Christian Identity conspiracy theorist? How about an adherent of
William Pierce/National Alliance or Lyndon LaRouche or 9/11 conspiracy
theorists or holocaust denial theorists?
Most of us readily acknowledge our fallibility as human beings but
conspiracy proponents seem to start from the opposite point of view
i.e. the only possibility of error exists in the non-believer
community! Does that type of mindset recommend itself as being
capable of discerning fact from fiction or dealing fairly and
rationally with complex subject matter?
Ockham's razor and Counter-Intuitive Propositions
To believe any of the major right-wing political conspiracy theories
requires us to set aside most of what humans have learned from
historical experience and to accept the most counter-intuitive and
complex explanations.
(1) Belief requires acceptance of the idea that thousands upon
thousands of people have been willing participants in a conspiracy
over a very long period of time but not one person has ever become
disillusioned, and then defected, and then revealed confidential and
damaging data about the existence of the conspiracy to legal
authorities or congressional committees or the news media. [As news
re****ts from Wa****ngton DC over the past couple years make manifestly
clear, keeping secrets in our government (and in any free society) is
very problematic.]
(2) Belief also requires acceptance of the idea that much more
rigorous criminal conspiracies --- i.e. ones that are held together by
physical threats and intimidation and which often operate in closed
environments --- nevertheless routinely disintegrate and become known
relatively shortly after inception=85but less robust political
conspiracies can somehow maintain superhuman iron discipline and never
be revealed or compromised by insiders even after decades of
existence.
By "more rigorous criminal conspiracies" I refer to the fact that
certain conspiracies involve intimately-connected persons who operate
in an environment where they directly control rewards and punishments
and they can inflict immediate and substantial harm upon uncooperative
individuals plus the conspirators are often trained in, and have
little compunction about using, violence to achieve their objectives---
which in this case is silence.
In recent weeks and months, for example, we have seen media re****ts
about conspiracy indictments or trial verdicts involving police
officers, military personnel, prison officials, and organized crime
figures. These folks work in an environment which routinely involves
threats, intimidation, and violence to keep people in line.
Police and prison officers can plant evidence, falsely testify
regarding criminal intent/behavior, or they may inflict extreme
psychic pressure and harassment upon non-cooperative individuals. The
"code of silence" which prevails among their peers often ****elds them
from exposure. Furthermore, the scope of their type of conspiracy
often involves a very small number of people who are under the direct
control, supervision, or purview of the conspirators. In addition,
there is the societal pre-disposition to believe whatever a policeman
or prison employee might say as compared to testimony from convicted
criminals or persons perceived as sociopaths and predators.
Similarly, military personnel can engage in torture, extreme forms of
harassment, or even kill persons they claim were "combatants" OR they
can allege "collateral damage" has occurred which covers-up their own
illegal acts (including murder) and thus they can feel confident that
their criminal acts and their conspiracy will remain un-exposed.
By contrast, the tools available to the CFR-NWO crowd to discourage
and prevent exposure of their conspiracy by co-conspirators or
witnesses are much more subtle and much less compelling.
Nevertheless, the police, military, organized crime, and prison
conspiracies are routinely penetrated, exposed, and prosecuted despite
their more self-sealing or invisible quality.
But we are asked to believe that the alleged CFR-NWO conspiracy (or
comparable other alleged political conspiracies) can operate with
invisibility and impunity decade after decade.
THE UNDERLYING DYNAMIC OF POLITICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY
A while back I stumbled across the results of a poll whose respondents
were Birch Society members/sympathizers in the New Orleans area.
The poll question was "Who killed Nicholas Berg?".
51% of respondents thought our CIA killed Berg.
14% agreed with the following statement about Berg: "He's not dead. It
was staged."
What possible methodology could one employ to prove either contention
false (to the satisfaction of those Birchers?)
As previously noted, the actual content of any given conspiracy theory
is of secondary im****tance. Instead, one needs to understand the
underlying dynamic at work.
Conspiracy theorists present themselves as being uniquely insightful,
i.e. they perceive relation****ps, unearth data, and connect dots which
escape 99% of the rest of humanity.
Why is it then, that their self-proclaimed superior intellect,
research skills, and analytical abilities are never employed to first
DISPROVE the most compelling competing theories which they believe to
be erroneous?
For example:
=B7 Why can't Birchers definitively refute Christian Identity
theories?
=B7 Why can't Birchers even convince their own dissident
elements (originating from within the JBS) that they have concocted a
theory which makes false sinister, defamatory assertions about the
background of many of the original JBS National Council members whom,
it is alleged, were actually secret CFR, freemason, Illuminati agents?
=B7 Why can't Willis Carto adherents definitively refute
LaRouchian theories?
=B7 Why can't CFR/New World Order/elitist hidden government
theorists definitively refute holocaust denial or other anti-semitic
theories?
In the process of successfully refuting alternative theories, these
folks would win legions of new followers to their own clearly
demonstrated superior theory! So why don=92t they refute the competing
theories?
Conspiracy theory acts as a psychological tonic and establishes one's
own "superior" understanding of events and "the way things really
are".
Most political conspiracy theories presume a conscious, coherent plan
in operation for decades which proceeds almost flawlessly without ever
being exposed by its participants or witnesses.
In fact, it is this very quality (ultra-coherence) which renders
conspiracy theories so implausible. Conspiracy theories provide a
degree of order and clarity which rarely exists in human affairs.
(see =93epistemology=94 section below for further comments).
So, under what cir***stances would someone voluntarily relinquish such
a potent elixir and revert to an ordinary mortal's weak, ambiguous, or
unsatisfying understanding of history and contem****ary events?
Conspiracy theories speak to an internal need for neat, orderly, and
unambiguous identification of enemies that one should vanquish and
render impotent within society.
=46rom the perspective of the conspiracy adherent, nothing could be
worse than for objective conditions to improve----i.e. if the
improvement requires relinqui****ng some ****tion of their mistaken
dogma.
Over many decades, when one's personal political preferences are not
accepted or implemented, it may be too difficult for political
conspiracy believers to candidly acknowledge that their ideas and
proposals have little or no merit in the eyes of their fellow
countrymen---so, naturally, the believers search around for an
alternative explanation for the lack of popular sup****t...and
conspiracy theories fill the bill perfectly.
RECURRING EPISTEMOLOGICAL DILEMMAS IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES
The John Birch Society presents sound advice about conspiracy theories
on its website: http://www.jbs.org/conspiracy
=93Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet. While some may be fairly
accurate, others are not. Much of what is out there goes beyond the
facts into wild conjecturing, and even outright fabrication of
information. This has had an effect something like Gresham=92s Law (=91bad
money drives out good money=92), in which bad information drives out
good information. What is fact? What is fiction? How can you know?=94
How indeed?
CONTRADICTIONS
For the past 26 years I have submitted thousands of FOIA requests to
the FBI and other government agencies. Most of my requests have
focused on individuals, organizations, and publications recommended by
the JBS as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable sources of
information.
During this process, I have discovered a recurring phenomenon, namely,
the sources recommended by the JBS often contradict themselves or they
contradict other sources which the JBS recommends --- which begs the
following questions:
1. How do conspiracy believers resolve conflicting testimony when a
source they recommend as honest, truthful and accurate nevertheless
contradicts their own statements --- including their sworn testimony
before legislative committees or in a courtroom?
2. Similarly, how do conspiracy believers go about deciding whom and
what to believe when two different sources (both of whom they describe
as knowledgeable and reliable) come to different conclusions about the
same subject matter?
For example:
(a) There are instances where FBI and Department of Justice
informants who subsequently became paid speakers for the Birch Society
made sensational statements or allegations during their JBS-sponsored
speeches and writings. However, when one acquires their FBI or
Department of Justice files --- there is no record that they ever
re****ted such data or raised such concerns during their time as an
informant! Examples include: Rev. Delmar Dennis, Julia Brown, and
Lola Belle Holmes.
(b) Furthermore, after they became paid speakers for the JBS, these
folks have categorically contradicted their previous testimony before
legislative committees, or in courtrooms, or in their articles and
books.
EXCEPTIONALISM -- How Do Conspiracies Operate?
Conspiracy believers often propose that we must accept what I describe
as their =93exceptionalism=94 argument =96 i.e. the notion that we cannot
apply our ac***ulated historical knowledge about conspiracies to the
contem****ary conspiracy alleged to be in operation.
In this scheme of things, we are asked to believe that the =93CFR-New
World Order=94 conspiracy which they allege has been in existence for
decades does not operate according to normal rules of human behavior
nor does it operate in the same manner (or leave footprints) as do all
other conspiracies about which we have knowledge. Hence, we are asked
to believe that the methodology successfully used to detect,
penetrate, and expose previous conspiracies in U.S. history is now
inapplicable.
ALL conspiracies are populated by actors who do not wish to be
detected.
ALL conspiracies involve secrecy and deception.
ALL conspiracies use methods to hide and protect the conspirators and
thwart penetration by outsiders
ALL conspiracies have had defectors or disillusioned participants or
witnesses that have come forward to expose the conspiracy.
During my many debates with believers in a CFR-New World Order
conspiracy, I have developed a series of questions which I use to
focus attention upon the intrinsic absurdity of many of their
propositions. I now present some of those questions because they can
be used to expose the defects within any conspiracy argument.
What is the definition of NORMAL political behavior? In other words,
what criteria determines when behavior is conspiratorial as opposed to
normal political activity? Has there ever been a period in U.S.
history when conspiratorial forces were not predominant?
Which objectives are the CFR-NWO conspiracy pursuing that it cannot
achieve by non-conspiratorial means? For example, according to the
most recent edition of the John Birch Society =93Freedom Index=94 (which
scores all members of Congress with respect to =93their adherence to
constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal
responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy
of avoiding foreign entanglements=94) --- the average score for the
House of Representatives is 43% and the average score for the Senate
is 36%. In other words, the CFR-NWO crowd apparently is successful at
achieving its objectives through the legislative process---so why is a
=93conspiracy=94 required?
Are political conspirators ordinary mortals? Do they function in the
same manner as ordinary people? For example, do they have the same
range of emotions such as anger, jealousy, envy, pride, admiration,
respect?
Are the persons involved in political conspiracies omniscient or
omnipotent? If not, are they fallible? Are they susceptible to the
same weaknesses and defects experienced by ordinary people such as:
stupidity, desire for revenge, failure to accomplish assigned tasks,
inability to resolve personality conflicts, inability to work well
with co-conspirators, incompetence, failure to anticipate adverse
results of their actions or decisions?
=46rom our knowledge of previous conspiracies=85
typically, how long from the inception of the conspiracy did it take
before the existence of the conspiracy became known?
how are conspiracies normally organized? For example: are there
regularly scheduled meetings? Are any notes taken? Are there written
memos, re****ts, or any other do***entary evidence? Is there any sort
of organizational chart?
How do conspirators communicate with each other? For example: when a
new policy or objective is decided upon, how does senior management of
the conspiracy inform their subordinates? Newsletter? Phone calls?
Emails? Or what?
Do the conspirators usually have regular full-time jobs doing things
un-related to the conspiracy? If so, how much time are they normally
able to devote to the conspiracy? Does the conspiracy normally take
priority over their family life? If so, this must create tension or
acrimony within their families who feel neglected---just as is the
case with many prominent persons whose careers absorb their time.
What evidence do we have of such conspirator family quarrels or
friction?
Every conspiracy we can name (for example: Mafia, Watergate, CPUSA,
tobacco companies, Enron, KKK) has produced insiders who defected and
told their stories to law enforcement, legislative committees, and/or
news media. Specify some defectors from the =93CFR-New World Order=94
conspiracy.
In every organization there is competition for leader****p and
influence. That competition often leads to internal disputes and hurt
feelings. Usually, when policy or personal differences result in
acrimonious exchanges, someone leaks embarrassing information as
=93payback=94 to get even. Is there such evidence in CFR-NWO conspiracy
history?
How is the conspiracy financed? What financial records, if any, are
kept and by whom? Are the records audited in any way? Does the
conspiracy *****s dues or require periodic financial contributions?
Every conspiracy we know about has produced defectors or disillusioned
participants or witnesses who copied confidential internal do***ents
and then released them to law enforcement or Congressional
investigators or the news media. The do***ents often reveal
member****p or financial data, mailing lists, or other confidential
information. Are there any such defectors, witnesses, or
disillusioned participants who have provided such do***entary evidence
about the CFR-NWO conspiracy
With respect to specific defectors or disillusioned participants=85
Have they made any statement which summarized their conspiratorial
career? In other words, something that starts with =93I joined the
conspiracy=94 on (date) and then proceeds to explain (a) their reasons
for joining, and (b) what his/her specific role was in the conspiracy,
i.e. what tasks he/she was assigned, and (c) why and when he/she left
the conspiracy? Was the conspirator unsuccessful at any assigned
task? If so, specify examples.
Does the participant state whether or not he/she was a junior or
senior officer within the conspiracy? Or was he/she just a follower
of orders but not a decision-maker?
How often did the conspirator attend conspiracy meetings? Who was
present at those meetings? After the meetings, did the conspirator
prepare written notes about what transpired? What plots were
discussed at these meetings and which of those plots did the
conspirator participate in?
What specific tasks was the conspirator assigned by their superiors
after joining? Who were their superiors? How much direct contact did
conspirators have with their superiors? Was that contact by phone or
in writing or what? Are there any records of such contacts?
Are there any do***ents (or confirming testimony by other members of
the conspiracy) that establishes that the defecting conspirator was
actually a member of that conspiracy and which also discusses the
conspirator=92s status within the hierarchy of the conspiracy?
By definition, conspiracy refers to illegal behavior so=85.on what date
did the conspirator first contact law enforcement authorities to
re****t his/her participation in the conspiracy and the illegal
activities he/she was associated with? Did the conspirator prepare a
sworn affidavit or testify under oath in court or before legislative
committees about his/her participation in a conspiracy?
If the conspirator never re****ted his/her participation in the
conspiracy to law enforcement or other entities =96 how do we know that
he/she genuinely left the conspiracy? How do we determine whether or
not a conspirator genuinely departed as opposed to merely pretending
to be a defector in order to become a disinformation agent to confuse
authorities and the public about the actual existence, operations or
objectives of the conspiracy?
By revealing the names of their co-conspirators, the defecting
conspirator would expect hostility and reprisals. Can you cite some
examples of such hostility and reprisals directed against the
defecting conspirator --- such as comments made in court testimony,
newspaper or magazine articles, interviews, or on websites --- where
the defecting conspirator is denounced?
MY RESEARCH (including links to my re****ts on the Birch Society:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
|
