[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Obama’s wife is member of the CFR.
Obama attended AIPAC’s conferences, just like Hillary, Biden, …
You won’t find Paul at AIPAC conferences, believe me…[/quote]
Got a link? I’d like to read that.
I guess we should all accept that no one outside of the ‘mainstream’ has a chance; its all insiders. Kind of like Orwell’s Inner Party…
Obama speech at AIPAC short clip:
Prepared text of Barack Obama’s speech for the AIPAC foreign policy forum
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html
Barack Obama’s wife is on the board of directors of the Chicago CFR
[quote]Sloth wrote:
William Rodriguez
William Rodriguez [/quote]
We’re missing out on half the fun people! You realize of course that Rodriquez’ chief supporter for “objective” inquiry into 9/11 is none other than Hugo Chavez?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm
So, we’ve the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, patriots and all we were missing until now were the pro/anti-Chavez wing. This ought to get even more shit flying around here!
woo-hoo!
– jj
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Of course they failed: they didn’t specifically outlaw fiat money though they had just seen the disasterous results from using same. [/quote]
Failed at what? What were their stated aims? Last I read they were
Freedom from the Mercantile System (did that)
Get a representational government (did that, after a few bumps)
Got guarantees of personal liberties (got that)
Got right to keep local militias to protect them from French and Indian attacks (got that)
They left the door open for citizens to legislate what they needed to do. Regulation is a necessary evil, I am afraid. Do you really think that letting 300 millions people do their own thing will turn out hunky-dorry for everyone?
[quote]I distrust politicians and powerful people. Looking at the people in charge and those who want the job, you trust them? Why? They’re all criminals (except maybe Barack — he’s a lib but I think he’s honest. I’d vote for him over criminal McCain or Hill-Billy).
[/quote]
Generally US politicians are harmless. Doesn’t matter who you elect none of them are going to empty Fort Knox and head for Switzerland. Sure defense and social programs go up or down a notch or two. Sure sometimes attempts are made at various social programs, but on the whole the system works as it was intended.
So how the Hell can I say that when it seems to be a chaotic mess?
Because I have made it a point of reading carefully what the Founding Fathers were up to. They realized that there will always be strife, counterclaims and such and their ideal was a system that, while cacophonous, has checks and balances to ensure a nice slow evolution of consensus.
This is far from perfect and bugs the Hell out of everyone because nobody gets their way, but it has also given rise to a scalable, functional system that is the longest-running success story in history.
Now the issue I see for politics (are we getting drift here again) is the foolish insistence of politicians on polls and tailoring their agendas to whatever the most vocal special interest group is at hand. I do not want some politician to sweet talk me by parroting what every blue-haired lady at the local mall said.
I do want to see that they can make a decision on their own and fulfill their function of governing on my behalf in a reasonable, forthright way. This is why I do not trust most of the current politicians (even Obama, sadly has succumbed). I think that they are incapable of understanding a hard problem and lobbying for a prudent course of action.
As it stands now, whatever lobby group talks to them loudest dictates their policy and this is precisely the cause of alienation in the current political climate.
and I could be wrong…
– jj
– jj
[quote]The Mage wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Obama’s wife is member of the CFR.
Obama attended AIPAC’s conferences, just like Hillary, Biden, …
You won’t find Paul at AIPAC conferences, believe me…
You mean Ron (KKK) Paul?[/quote]
To be fair, he’s a non-interventionist. You won’t see him engaging any group that lobbies on behalf of a foreign nation. He has nothing to offer them.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
William Rodriguez
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html
We’re missing out on half the fun people! You realize of course that Rodriquez’ chief supporter for “objective” inquiry into 9/11 is none other than Hugo Chavez?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm
So, we’ve the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, patriots and all we were missing until now were the pro/anti-Chavez wing. This ought to get even more shit flying around here!
woo-hoo!
– jj [/quote]
I didn’t realise Chavez was in charge of Norad on 911 and gave stand down orders…not to forget he opposed from the start an independent 911 enquiry.
Nor did i realise it is Chavez who PROMOTED instead of HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE the high ranking officials implicated in the failures of 911…
WOO - HOO indeed !!
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Hey, are you Mikeyali under another username ?
Dismissing me yesterday, replying today ?
Schizophrenia is a serious disease; try modifying your diet.[/quote]
Uh, yeah, right.
I am still dismissing you. I have yet to see you actually debate anything. You ignore everything presented to you, then expect others to actually follow a link to watch 4 hours of somebody else making crazy statements, and then come back here and debate that guy instead of you.
What you have posted here are not misstatements, but out and out lies. Maybe you have been fooled by these nutty websites you frequent, but they are full of bad science, lies, and twisted truths, mostly things taken out of context.
And not once here am I saying trust the media, or the government. They both should be looked at with a very critical eye.
But what you have done here is make some accusations without the facts to back it up. These are serious accusations, and before they should be given any credence, there must be serious proof.
You have no proof, no real science. You just deflect any attempt at a serious discussion on the issue. Kind of like how you didn’t even respond to what I said, which has full backing of reality, and even direct quotes (recent) of Ron Paul.
Well, if i have no proof, i guess all that’s left to do is watching The Mage talking to himself on this forum.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Well, if i have no proof, i guess all that’s left to do is watching The Mage talking to himself on this forum.[/quote]
Good for you, jeff. It takes courage and humility to admit mistakes. See my post on Iraq.
Yeah, I know, sarcasm.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Of course they failed: they didn’t specifically outlaw fiat money though they had just seen the disasterous results from using same.
Failed at what? What were their stated aims? Last I read they were
Freedom from the Mercantile System (did that)
Get a representational government (did that, after a few bumps)
Got guarantees of personal liberties (got that)
Got right to keep local militias to protect them from French and Indian attacks (got that)
They left the door open to massive regulation and taxation of the citizens, which later villains (like Woodrow Wilson) happily stepped through.
They left the door open for citizens to legislate what they needed to do. Regulation is a necessary evil, I am afraid. Do you really think that letting 300 millions people do their own thing will turn out hunky-dorry for everyone?
I distrust politicians and powerful people. Looking at the people in charge and those who want the job, you trust them? Why? They’re all criminals (except maybe Barack — he’s a lib but I think he’s honest. I’d vote for him over criminal McCain or Hill-Billy).
Generally US politicians are harmless. Doesn’t matter who you elect none of them are going to empty Fort Knox and head for Switzerland. Sure defense and social programs go up or down a notch or two. Sure sometimes attempts are made at various social programs, but on the whole the system works as it was intended.
So how the Hell can I say that when it seems to be a chaotic mess?
Because I have made it a point of reading carefully what the Founding Fathers were up to. They realized that there will always be strife, counterclaims and such and their ideal was a system that, while cacophonous, has checks and balances to ensure a nice slow evolution of consensus. This is far from perfect and bugs the Hell out of everyone because nobody gets their way, but it has also given rise to a scalable, functional system that is the longest-running success story in history.
Now the issue I see for politics (are we getting drift here again) is the foolish insistence of politicians on polls and tailoring their agendas to whatever the most vocal special interest group is at hand. I do not want some politician to sweet talk me by parroting what every blue-haired lady at the local mall said. I do want to see that they can make a decision on their own and fulfill their function of governing on my behalf in a reasonable, forthright way. This is why I do not trust most of the current politicians (even Obama, sadly has succumbed). I think that they are incapable of understanding a hard problem and lobbying for a prudent course of action. As it stands now, whatever lobby group talks to them loudest dictates their policy and this is precisely the cause of alienation in the current political climate.
and I could be wrong…
– jj
– jj[/quote]
The Founding Fathers failed to understand that government, in and of itself, is evil. They allowed this entity to have the power to tax (and hence destroy). They were brilliant but not enough to think outside the box.
Big ex: They allowed for tariffs which led to a Civil War.
They tried to outfit a new style of government while retaining the rotten cloth of the old. They tried to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — so we got the IRS, Social Secirity, the Prescription Drug Plan, and the Patriot Act.
Let’s face it: when you retain the Senate and your Emperor is chosen by popular vote instead of chosen by the Praetorian Guard, your going to get the same results as before.
Good article:
[i]Theories of 9/11
Last year, St. Joseph’s College hosted a symposium for those who doubt the official version of what happened on 9/11. Are their doubts justified, or paranoid?
By Jennifer Abel
According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to happen. Other polls report even greater levels of cynicism.
Where do you draw the line separating “fringe conspiracy theory” from “mainstream phenomenon”? We’re not sure, but if one-third of the populace isn’t the mainstream it’s at least a significant tributary of it.
So last November, when we learned that the Connecticut Citizens for a New 9/11 Investigation were hosting a symposium at St. Joseph’s College in West Hartford, we paid it more attention than the usual “UFOs killed JFK” conspiracy e-mails that flood our in-box: rather than delete the message, we called the contact number within.
Distrusting the government is like drinking wine: if you never do it, you’re probably too uptight. If you do it in moderation, it’s very good for your health. But if you do it too much you make yourself ridiculous. Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall? Not in the “uptight” zone, that much we knew. The question was, did they have a healthy anti-government buzz or a sloppy-drunk one?
Symposium organizer Damon Bean was quick to distance his group from what he considers the sloppy-drunk 9/11 deniers, those who claim that (for example) the government fired missiles at the Pentagon and hid this by pretending to hijack a plane, whose passengers are presumed alive and in government custody to this day.
Here’s what Bean told us: “Although we all have personal questions about other aspects of the official story, our group and thus the symposium focuses almost exclusively on the scientific and testimonial evidence for controlled demolition of the three towers [in the World Trade Center] because we believe the evidence against the official explanation in this area is so overwhelming.”
Controlled demolition means someone planted explosives in the towers long before the planes hit. If true, that has terrifying implications.
Yes it does, Bean agreed. Some lies, he argued, are so huge their very size helps keep them hidden because “the lie’s too enormous - if you accept [the truth], your whole worldview changes.”
On the second Tuesday of Sept. 2001, the sun rose for the last time on three buildings in Manhattan’s World Trade Center: the Twin Towers and the 47-story Building 7. By sunset on Sept. 11, all three had collapsed.
The official explanation is that 19 men with ties to al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger planes.
Suicidal pilots steered two of them into the twin towers, both of which collapsed within 100 minutes because the heat of the initial explosions and the fires they spawned weakened the skyscrapers’ steel frames.
A 2005 metallurgy report issued by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) says that “All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600° C, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength.”
In other words, the official story goes, the steel weakened to the point where it could no longer support the buildings, but the steel never melted. (Remember this; it’s the linchpin on which much of the 9/11 denier argument turns.)
So down went the towers. The force of their collapse flung burning debris into Building 7, which fell later that afternoon. The official report on Building 7 hasn’t yet come out, but will probably mention similar steel weakness whenever it does.
The 9/11 deniers have another explanation.
“We have prima facie forensic evidence for the controlled demolition of all three high-rise towers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,” said Richard Gage, a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (and a speaker at 9/11 symposia across the country).
“[The towers] dropped symmetrically, smoothly … at virtually free-fall speed against steel designed to resist such a collapse. That can only happen when the core columns are removed … within a fraction of a second of each other.”
With a controlled demolition, in other words.
Gage has video showing how much the tower collapses resemble controlled demolitions, and file footage of other high-rise fires: steel-frame skyscrapers completely engulfed in flames for over 24 hours without collapsing. Yet the World Trade towers fell after less than two hours of fire burned a mere 5 or 10 percent of their floors.
Of course, the burning buildings in Gage’s video weren’t hit by speeding planes filled with flammable jet fuel. But, the deniers point out, neither was Building 7. Incidentally, among the tenants in Building 7 were the IRS, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the mayor of New York’s Office of Emergency Management. Some think that the government brought Building 7 down because that’s where the plot was managed. Hence, pulling it down destroyed the evidence.
Steven Jones, a physicist formerly of Brigham Young University, can often be found at the same symposia as Gage. In 2006 Jones was stripped of his teaching duties at the university. In September of that year, Jones told the news talk show Radio West that the responsibility for the attacks rested with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and an “international banking cartel.” Jones later quit his position, and has since declined to discuss who he thinks is behind the attack and has said he will “stick with the science.” At the West Hartford symposium, and later with us, Jones discussed Building 7 at length.
“The 9/11 Commission report failed to mention the collapse,” of Building 7, he said in a phone interview. “This is a 47-story skyscraper they didn’t mention.”
And there’s other things they never mentioned, he says, like the traces of a powerful explosive called thermite, which he claims have been found at the site. “We found thermite residue … in the dust from the towers’ collapse … NIST admits it didn’t search for explosive residue.”
Jones also talks about the microscopic “iron-rich spheres” he says he found in the dust. “To form spheres of iron requires the iron to be melted. Liquid … the dust is loaded with these iron-rich spheres. So already, we’re outside the official story of ‘the steel did not melt.’”
Michael Neuman is the unfortunate bureaucrat whose name and number grace the contact information of that NIST report.
We called and (somewhat apologetically) explained we were doing a story on 9/11 conspiracies.
“We don’t want to get into a debate,” Neuman said. “Certainly people are entitled to their opinion … [but] we’re staying away from debates with these groups.”
We assured him we didn’t belong to “these groups,” though we admitted some of the groups’ members made points we could not refute. We hoped Neuman could. The first thing we mentioned was Jones’s claims of finding explosive residue in the debris.
“We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” Neuman said.
We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
“Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”
Neuman really didn’t want to talk to us. Depending on your preference, you could interpret that as further proof of a government cover-up, or as a legitimate time-management technique from a bureaucrat who can’t be expected to persuade every single doubter who finds his phone number on the NIST report.
How to tell the difference? We called Stuart Vyse, a psychology professor at Connecticut College, to ask for a rule dividing theories worth investigating from those worth dismissing out of hand.
“A healthy level of skepticism is useful, and there’s no question governments lie to people,” he said. “But in this case, it’s certainly been carried too far … [tales of] government conspiracies are pretty common. They take many forms, the whole UFO thing … ‘we’re being visited by aliens but they’re keeping that from us.’”
To be fair, we said, some of Gage’s and Jones’ points sound (at least to a non-scientist) more reasonable than the alien antics of the Men In Black. The lack of an official report for Building 7 - maybe a new investigation wouldn’t hurt, even though we don’t believe government could pull off such a complicated plot.
Exactly, said Vyse, and the plot’s very complexity is one clue that debate might just be a waste of time. Consider the Law of Parsimony (also known as Occam’s Razor), a form of logical shorthand which basically says when given two competing theories, the simplest one is usually better.
The al-Qaeda hijacking theory is pretty simple: some guys hijacked airplanes and flew them into landmarks. That’s very easy to do, if you can find someone willing to commit suicide for your cause.
Now compare that to the controlled-demolition theory. How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash - and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?
If you played a role in the controlled demolition of the towers, you could move to a country that doesn’t extradite to the U.S., sell the rights to your story and live like a king. And if you’re evil enough to join such a plot, you’re probably avaricious enough to sell out your co-conspirators for a quick buck. Yet in the six-plus years since the attack, no such person has ever come forward.
The West Hartford symposium’s tightly packed schedule had lectures back-to-back, with no time to socialize. So we played hooky from a few lectures and milled about the lobby instead.
A clean-cut man in a polo shirt and khakis smiled at us. “You’re with the media?” he asked.
We said yes.
And with little preamble he told us the plane-hijacking story was invented by the Bush administration to cover up the fact that they’d hit the buildings with missiles.
“There�??s no evidence of planes hitting the Pentagon,” he said. “It’s been proven the video footage of the plane hitting the south tower [of the WTC] is fake. Google Chopper Five.”
Another man said planes did hit the buildings, but not because of hijackers. “Flight 77 [the Pentagon plane] wasn�??t really owned by American Airlines,” he said, but by a shadow company out West. “They take aircraft and retrofit them to be flown by remote control … remote is how they control the Mars Rovers. They can do it on earth too.”
Speaking of earth, America has the most powerful military on it. Therefore, someone else told us, “You cannot strike the Pentagon without inside involvement.”
Did we look a little dazed? Perhaps, for the next man smiled sympathetically. “You’re wondering how they planted explosives in the towers with nobody knowing, aren’t you?” We nodded. "Copy paper. Office paper moved into the buildings on skids, a ton of paper at a time … "
“Who benefited from 9/11 and the global war on terror?” someone else rhetorically asked. “The U.S., if you think we should be controlling the world. Israel benefited tremendously. It was the Mossad masterminding it.”
The Mossad again. That’s the national intelligence agency of the state of Israel. Before the symposium, we’d spent some time online researching 9/11 conspiracies, and came to the following conclusion: not every 9/11 denier believes the Elders of Zion secretly rule the world, but everyone who believes the Elders of Zion secretly rule the world is a 9/11 denier.
In all fairness: the only people at the symposium who said things like “the Jews did it” were some of the off-the-street paying customers; we heard none of the featured speakers blame the plot on “Zionists” or any other shadow groups. But then, none of the featured speakers blamed the plot on anybody.
Damon Bean, Richard Gage and Steven Jones never would answer our questions regarding just who they thought was responsible for the attacks; they would only say that, while they don’t know who did commit the attacks, they know al-Qaeda didn’t.
If not al-Qaeda, then who?
We went online again in search of someone to blame. Anyone to blame, with the following caveat: we ignored all Web sites containing phrases like “Jew-controlled media,” “Illuminati” or “Zionist hegemony.”
Maybe that’s why we couldn’t find any alternate scapegoat.
Conspiracy theories are as American as apple pie. Robert Goldberg, a historian at the University of Utah, specializes in them, so we called to ask if he could give us a neat, simple answer to the question “Why do so many otherwise sane people believe such odd things?”
But of course no single answer exists. “In the 1960s, polls showed 75 percent of Americans said they trust the government; by the 90s, it was down to 25 percent,” Goldberg said. “With the erosion of faith, they want ‘someone to tell us what’s true,’ and that’s where the conspiracy theory comes in.”
So if you can’t trust the government, you can at least trust the guy who tells you why the government can’t be trusted. That explains some conspiracy theorists.
And there’s other motivational possibilities: if you’re able to discern the existence of a huge, secret conspiracy, that makes you more intelligent than the “sheeple” who still can’t see the truth. Quite an ego-boost, that. Or maybe it’s a simple comfort factor: if a big, shadowy organization lurks behind the scenes controlling the world - well, at least that means somebody’s in control.
The thought that a huge secret mystery group could bring down the World Trade Center, push America into war and get away with it is scary, yes. But is it any scarier than getting the same nasty result from the actions of a single wealthy Middle Eastern psychopath with a few suicidal friends?
[/i]
Recommended reading for conspiracy theorists:
[i]Five Best
These works help untangle
the mysterious popularity
of conspiracy theories
By MAX HOLLAND
February 2, 2008; Page W8
First conceived as a university lecture, Richard Hofstadter’s seminal essay – the title work in this collection – remains the place to begin any discussion of conspiracy theories. “Heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” are hallmarks of the paranoid style, writes Hofstadter (1916-70). To paranoia’s purveyors, “history is a conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power.” Hofstadter was writing about extreme right-wing groups, such as the John Birch Society, that flourished in the early 1960s. It’s a pity that he is not here to analyze today’s extreme leftists who promote the line that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 terror attacks.
Of the nearly dozen books that have been published in the past decade about the rise of conspiracism, historian Robert Alan Goldberg’s “Enemies Within” is unrivaled. He explores five conspiracy theories that have gained popularity in the past half-century: the cover-up of a UFO incident in Roswell, N.M.; the plot against black America; the rise of the anti-Christ; the establishment of the New World Order; and, of course, the assassination of JFK. Goldberg expertly illuminates the political and social conditions that have allowed conspiracy-mongers, once consigned to the lunatic fringe, to creep into the mainstream.
To understand conspiratorial thinking, it is instructive to study how explanations for a historical event evolve over time. No work is more useful in this regard than William Hanchett’s “The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies.” Lincoln’s assassination was, of course, part of a real conspiracy aimed at decapitating the federal government. Most of the schemers were caught and executed. But the chief mover, John Wilkes Booth, was killed before he could be arrested, denying the country the catharsis of a courtroom drama and a definitive account of what occurred. Thus competing theories about the assassination began to appear. By tracing them during the century following Lincoln’s death, Hanchett illustrates an immutable truth: Ultimately, conspiracy theories tell us more about their authors and about human nature than they do about the event itself.
This work deserves to be read – but not for the purpose the author intended. According to John Kelin, a few hardy souls in the late 1960s dared speak truth to power and turned the American public against the government’s “unacceptable” Warren Report of 1964 investigating JFK’s assassination. The real history is more complicated, and large chunks of it are missing from this book. You will not learn from Kelin, for instance, that Mark Lane – a New York lawyer who was Lee Harvey Oswald’s self-appointed chief defender – was secretly subsidized by the KGB. Yet because Kelin draws heavily from primary sources – mostly private letters between “assassination buffs,” as writer Calvin Trillin dubbed them back then – this book is a fascinating portrait of how conspiracy theories about JFK’s death were nurtured mostly by liberals desperate to find an alternate explanation for the murder of President Kennedy by an avowed Marxist.
When a monumental event occurs that transcends the power of the courts to uncover the truth, the U.S. government turns to special commissions – most recently for the investigation into the 9/11 terror attacks. The findings are usually well received, but over time the authority of these efforts often wanes. In “Presidential Commissions & National Security,” Kenneth Kitts shows why federal panels are imperfect and why they often inadvertently spur the conspiracy thinking they are designed to minimize. The Roberts Commission report on Pearl Harbor, for instance, begot countless books alleging that President Roosevelt knew in advance about the attack. No matter how lofty their aims, Kitts says, government-commission reports are inevitably political documents and will come to be seen as such.
Mr. Holland is the author of “The Kennedy Assassination Tapes” (Knopf, 2004).[/i]
Studying the conspiracy theorists:
ABSTRACT:
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
An alternative explanation: Conspiracy theories arise from peoples’ intense ignorance:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_01_27-2008_02_02.shtml#1201989369
[i][Ilya Somin, February 2, 2008 at 4:56pm] Trackbacks
Political Ignorance and Belief in Conspiracy Theory:
Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule have posted an excellent new paper on belief in conspiracy theory. As they point out, belief in highly dubious conspiracy theories about key political events is widespread. For example, they cite survey data showing that some one third of Americans believe that federal government officials either carried out the 9/11 attacks themselves or deliberately allowed them to happen. Large numbers of people also believe that John F. Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a wideranging conspiracy in the government, that the AIDS virus was secretly produced in a government laboratory for the purpose of infecting blacks ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33695-2005Jan24.html ), and that the government is covering up evidence of alien visitation of Earth ( Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - UFO Evidence ).
Why are such irrational beliefs so widespread in an open society where information refuting them is easily accessible? Sunstein and Vermeule present some possible answers. But they fail to consider a crucial question: Why is belief in bogus political conspiracies so much more widespread than comparably irrational beliefs about conspiracies in our daily lives? Far more people believe that the CIA killed Kennedy or engineered the 9/11 attacks than believe that a dark conspiracy is out to get them personally or that their associates and co-workers are plotting against them. Millions of people who embrace absurd conspiracy theories about political events are generally rational in their everyday lives.
In my view, the disjunction has to do with the rationality of political ignorance. As I describe in more detail in several of my works (e.g. - here ( Knowledge About Ignorance: New Directions in the Study of Political Information by Ilya Somin :: SSRN ) and here ( Political Ignorance and the Countermajoritarian Difficulty: A New Perspective on the 'Central Obsession' of Constitutional Theory by Ilya Somin :: SSRN )), it is perfectly rational for most people to know very little about politics and public policy - and indeed most people are quite ignorant about even basic aspects of these subjects ( http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372 ). Because the chance of your vote influencing the outcome of an election is infinitesmally small, there is little payoff to becoming informed about politics if your only reason for doing so is to be a better voter. By contrast, there are very strong incentives to be well-informed about issues in our personal and professional lives, where our choices are likely to be individually decisive. The person who (falsely) believes that a dark conspiracy is out to get him will impose tremendous costs on himself if he bases his decisions on that assumption; he’s likely to end up a paranoid recluse like Bobby Fischer (who, of course, embraced political conspiracy theories as well).
In the political realm, on the other hand, widespread rational ignorance helps to spread conspiracy theory in two ways. First, the more ignorant you are about politics and economics, the more plausible simple conspiracy theory explanations of events are likely to seem. If you don’t understand basic economics, you are more likely to believe that rising oil prices are caused by a conspiracy among oil companies or that the subprime crisis was caused by a conspiracy among banks ( Subscribe to read | Financial Times ). If you don’t understand the basic workings of our political system, you are more likely to swallow the idea that the federal government could carry out something like the 9/11 attack and then (falsely) blame it on Osama Bin Laden without the truth being quickly exposed through leaks and hostile media coverage.
Second, the rationality of political ignorance implies that even people who do have considerable knowledge are likely to be more susceptible to conspiracy theories about political events than in their personal lives. As I explain in this paper ( Knowledge About Ignorance: New Directions in the Study of Political Information by Ilya Somin :: SSRN ) (see also Bryan Caplan’s excellent book: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691129428 ), the rationality of political ignorance not only reduces people’s incentives to acquire political information, it also undercuts incentives to rationally evaluate the information they do learn. As a result, we are more likely to be highly biased in the way we evaluate political information than information about most other subjects. Many people embrace political conspiracy theories because they are more entertaining and emotionally satisfying than alternative, more prosaic explanations of events. Unlike in our nonpolitical lives, most people have little incentive to critically evaluate their political beliefs in order to weed out biases and and ensure their truth.
That is not to say that people are uniformly rational in their nonpolitical decisions. Far from it. But they are likely to be a great deal less irrational than they are about politics.[/i]
Skeptical Training 101:
Unfortunately there is a line that some people cross, be it religious people, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine people that takes them from being someone with some interest in it into a true believer.
There is little to NO hope for these people to step back across the line, especially conspiracy theorist, because EVERYTHING gets factored into the theory.
I recall a case, I dont remember exactly which conspiracy it was, where the FBI supposedly had documents locked in a filing cabinet somewhere and the CT’s were gonna break in a look for them. So now we have two outcomes:
1 - They find the documents.
2 - They dont find the documents.
They of course did not find them, and any rational person would say “Well, that ends that.” But the conspriacy theorist get 2 outs here… If they find them, badda bing - Conspiracy solved. If they dont find them, well that just means they hid the documents and badda bing - Conspiracy solved.
You can NEVER provide enough evidence because any information or “proof” is simply more cover up of the conspiracy. Its a really elegant system.
Take the 9-11. Lets just take the planted explosives argument. If you see examples of planted explosives… That means they are there and the government planted them. If you DONT see examples that just means the government is so good at hiding them you cant see them. These people dont give the option of If you dont see them, they dont exist.
You people like copy and paste jobs ?
There you go:
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italys oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:
All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.?
Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.
It seems natural to me that history should be conspiratorical — powerful people don’t want to be kicked out of power. If Group A doesn’t control things, then maybe Group B takes over.
Why WOULDN’T someone want to own Senators and Presidents? Doing so prevents others from owning them.
Book Description
No one else could have written this book because David H. Brown and Dr. John T. Dailey are the only two remaining members of the FAA Task Force that developed a viable airport security procedure in 1970. Based on personal recall, and FAA Manual AM-78-35 that documented the work of that group, this book takes you behind the scenes from the very beginning of efforts to curb aircraft hijacking, to how a proven program fell victim to bureaucracy. The book takes you through how the system was developed and tested, and why it was validated. It also reveals how the Task Force was able to overcome both airline opposition and agency recalcitrance. The team did not have precedents to work with, but blazed its own successful train. You will discover how the Task Force anticipated almost every aspect of airport security, and actually warned of future terrorist attacks using U.S. aircraft. You will read how the early program of “sky marshals” almost fell apart in a bizarre press conference, and why the Task Force did not support the use of armed guards on aircraft. This is a story you cannot find anywhere else. It may not be many pages, but the message is there.
“NINE/ELEVEN”: Could The Federal Aviation Administration Alone Have Deterred The Terrorist Skyjackers? You Will Find The Answer Here, But Not In The 9/11 Commission Report.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Skeptical Training 101:
Unfortunately there is a line that some people cross, be it religious people, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine people that takes them from being someone with some interest in it into a true believer.
There is little to NO hope for these people to step back across the line, especially conspiracy theorist, because EVERYTHING gets factored into the theory.
I recall a case, I dont remember exactly which conspiracy it was, where the FBI supposedly had documents locked in a filing cabinet somewhere and the CT’s were gonna break in a look for them. So now we have two outcomes:
1 - They find the documents.
2 - They dont find the documents.
They of course did not find them, and any rational person would say “Well, that ends that.” But the conspriacy theorist get 2 outs here… If they find them, badda bing - Conspiracy solved. If they dont find them, well that just means they hid the documents and badda bing - Conspiracy solved.
You can NEVER provide enough evidence because any information or “proof” is simply more cover up of the conspiracy. Its a really elegant system.
Take the 9-11. Lets just take the planted explosives argument. If you see examples of planted explosives… That means they are there and the government planted them. If you DONT see examples that just means the government is so good at hiding them you cant see them. These people dont give the option of If you dont see them, they dont exist.[/quote]
Lonnie, you have captured the mind-disease that afflicts the Conspiracy Nuts. They reject facts, they reject science, they even reject the method of rational discourse and proof because it does not serve some over-arching malign purpose. So there is no discussing events with them; its like discussing hallucinations with a paranoid schizophrenic.
But the malignancy of these bastards–jeffdirect, limbic, rocky101, ssn0–is only compounded by our arguing with them. It feeds their empty egos, and validates their craziness.
Ignore them. They can’t stand inattention, because it underscores their abject worthlessness.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Skeptical Training 101:
Unfortunately there is a line that some people cross, be it religious people, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine people that takes them from being someone with some interest in it into a true believer.
There is little to NO hope for these people to step back across the line, especially conspiracy theorist, because EVERYTHING gets factored into the theory.
I recall a case, I dont remember exactly which conspiracy it was, where the FBI supposedly had documents locked in a filing cabinet somewhere and the CT’s were gonna break in a look for them. So now we have two outcomes:
1 - They find the documents.
2 - They dont find the documents.
They of course did not find them, and any rational person would say “Well, that ends that.” But the conspriacy theorist get 2 outs here… If they find them, badda bing - Conspiracy solved. If they dont find them, well that just means they hid the documents and badda bing - Conspiracy solved.
You can NEVER provide enough evidence because any information or “proof” is simply more cover up of the conspiracy. Its a really elegant system.
Take the 9-11. Lets just take the planted explosives argument. If you see examples of planted explosives… That means they are there and the government planted them. If you DONT see examples that just means the government is so good at hiding them you cant see them. These people dont give the option of If you dont see them, they dont exist.
Lonnie, you have captured the mind-disease that afflicts the Conspiracy Nuts. They reject facts, they reject science, they even reject the method of rational discourse and proof because it does not serve some over-arching malign purpose. So there is no discussing events with them; its like discussing hallucinations with a paranoid schizophrenic.
But the malignancy of these bastards–jeffdirect, limbic, rocky101, ssn0–is only compounded by our arguing with them. It feeds their empty egos, and validates their craziness.
Ignore them. They can’t stand inattention, because it underscores their abject worthlessness.
[/quote]
All in all I agree, and the reason I’m even engaging in this debate is two fold:
1 - I was not 100% up to snuff on the 9/11 “truth” movement, so this gave me a good opportunity to examine it.
2 - I am new to the skeptical movement and this is really my first “argument” where I get to look at 2 sides of an event, evaluate the data and come to a non-biased scientific conclusion based on the facts and examining the logical fallacies in the arguments. This is really an exercise in “cutting my teeth” if you will… I’m not expecting to change anyones mind, merely honing my craft.
I do find it infinitely curious that given 2 choices, a fair amount of the population will chose the one that science does not support. This goes for many things besides 9/11… Such as people who think vaccines cause autism, people who think we didnt go to the moon, people who do not believe in evolution… The list goes on and on. It has been shown that some people have what is called a “Fantasy prone mind” and are more open to believe these types of things, which is why if you go to a psychic show you can typically find info on UFO’s, Bigfoot, loch ness, alternative medicine, and other forms of pseudoscience. Its all melded together.
I saw this as a great opportunity to do some good skeptical research and come to a conclusion. I came in unbiased(I didnt assume the government did, or did not, cause 9/11), looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion.
Honestly there were some videos and websites that had me seriously thinking(the “no-planes” video of the CNN footage was particularly interesting,but other evidence STRONGLY suggest planes did in fact hit the towers)… But they typically dont present any science or are seriously mislead in their interpretation of the videos, which becomes abundantly clear when you view an alternate video on the other side.
Also, we have to remember that a lack of evidence is not in itself evidence. Meaning just because something isnt or cannot currently be explained by the official story doesnt mean that its proof of a conspiracy.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Skeptical Training 101:
Unfortunately there is a line that some people cross, be it religious people, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine people that takes them from being someone with some interest in it into a true believer.
There is little to NO hope for these people to step back across the line, especially conspiracy theorist, because EVERYTHING gets factored into the theory.
I recall a case, I dont remember exactly which conspiracy it was, where the FBI supposedly had documents locked in a filing cabinet somewhere and the CT’s were gonna break in a look for them. So now we have two outcomes:
1 - They find the documents.
2 - They dont find the documents.
They of course did not find them, and any rational person would say “Well, that ends that.” But the conspriacy theorist get 2 outs here… If they find them, badda bing - Conspiracy solved. If they dont find them, well that just means they hid the documents and badda bing - Conspiracy solved.
You can NEVER provide enough evidence because any information or “proof” is simply more cover up of the conspiracy. Its a really elegant system.
Take the 9-11. Lets just take the planted explosives argument. If you see examples of planted explosives… That means they are there and the government planted them. If you DONT see examples that just means the government is so good at hiding them you cant see them. These people dont give the option of If you dont see them, they dont exist.
Lonnie, you have captured the mind-disease that afflicts the Conspiracy Nuts. They reject facts, they reject science, they even reject the method of rational discourse and proof because it does not serve some over-arching malign purpose. So there is no discussing events with them; its like discussing hallucinations with a paranoid schizophrenic.
But the malignancy of these bastards–jeffdirect, limbic, rocky101, ssn0–is only compounded by our arguing with them. It feeds their empty egos, and validates their craziness.
Ignore them. They can’t stand inattention, because it underscores their abject worthlessness.
[/quote]
“They can’t stand inattention, because it underscores their abject worthlessness.”
Do you orgasm directly after these statements? It takes you DAYS to formulate these frothing responses aimed at “community” solidarity.
Barrister’s quote from a couple of posts above should have given you pause, the one questioning how unlikely is it that factions in our government/military could have done this: any more unlikely that “an al-Qaeda terror group” could have performed such a large-scale project.
The malignancy is yours: upend the rational and feel good in your “community”'s trust in government. Pathetic.
Now convince your buddies it’s time to close ranks …
LOL