Conspiracists on the Rampage
With fully 33% of Americans believing 9/11 conspiracy theories, it’s no surprise when a rational debunking draws ire. A recent commenter from Australia responded indignantly to my post on Evil, ID, Conspiracies, and Ignorance. So without further ado, I’m bumping this up:
Some people will always prefer coincidence theories to conspiracy facts. How anyone could put Antony Sutton’s books or Gary Allen’s “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” or dozens of others down and declare them the work of fearful “theorists” I cannot fathom.
The power of these sources is found in the copious internal and public documents, records and especially the quotes from the mouths of the ‘conspirators’ themselves. They are telling us exactly what they are doing and basically bragging about it.
Sean, it may be that you agree with the objectives of the One Worlders [who confess to the “necessary” destruction of US sovereignty]. That’s your prerogative. But how can you deny what the Big Boys themselves are saying and doing [continually for at least a century about their plans for America and the world] and then denigrate those who can see it with labels and cheap shots? Mexico, the USA, and Canada are merging under our noses with no authority from the people. Like Europe they begin as security pacts, common markets etc., and then merge currency and political systems.
All of the major planks of the communist manifesto… A one world government, one world bank, one world currency, one world army, one world economy etc all centrally controlled is the objective. Include centrally controlled media, health etc .. In other words, absolute power over everything and everyone.
[Want to work in TV and movies? Sorry sir we have need of chicken pluckers at the moment… we’ve booked you a train ticket for 4am].
Instead of denigrating people who bring all these facts to our attention just admit that the communist manifesto is ok by you. If it’s not ok, open your eyes Sean.
BL, you come across as a true believer. And believers are the most easily offended when it comes to facing facts.
You mischaracterized my arguments, and didn’t address any of the most important points I made in the original post. Further, you make the classic error of lumping me in with supporting some kind of “World Communist” plot. It seems conspiracy theorists never met two patterns they couldn’t match–no matter how different they really are. Kind of a variation on counting the hits and ignoring the misses. I chalk up a lot of this fretting over conspiracies to a lack of a sense of personal power or control. If you felt empowered in your own life (or politically), you wouldn’t need to worry about finding someone or some cabal to blame. You’d also be talking about solutions, and they wouldn’t be sectarian, parochial, or nationalistic. You’d be talking about unity instead of maintaining the “us vs. them” status quo.
- For the record, I’m opposed to all forms of state coercion, whether capitalist or communist. But I’m unconvinced people could form a truly free society without order and structure.
- If the Communist Manifesto mentions a one-world government, and later one happens, that does not mean Engels, Marx or the perpetrators of the Bolshevik revolution somehow “implemented” their plan. What about the billions of rational actors in between whose decisions cannot be discounted?
- I’ve never understood the objection to world government. We have federal, state, and local governments, and they manage to coexist. Why would an additional layer on the global level make such a negative difference? What would be wrong with having a world currency? It would have the potential to eliminate a lot of inefficiencies, it would facilitate trade, and improve consistency on things like labor practices and human rights. A real global government might enable us to tackle problems global in scope such as war and climate change.
What’s the big problem? How did the terms “global” and “one-world” acquire such negative connotations? Why do you think a global body would lead to “absolute power over everything and everyone” any more than the governments we have today? Doesn’t it matter more what TYPE of global government it is? Haven’t the lines been blurred anyway, with organizations such as the WTO, UN, and multinational corporations taking on some of the roles of a world government?
I think you conspiracy theorists need to ask yourselves what is being served by viewing events in the way you do. How does your viewpoint lead to improvements? Why are your culprits never ‘exposed’ except to yourselves? How does blaming specific groups relieve your own angst and become more comforting for you? What overall psychological purpose is served? Does this belief system really reduce anxiety, or does it just focalize it safely away from your own responsibility to actually do anything about it?
How does seizing on a few fringe authors such as Sutton or Allen remotely pass intellectual muster? There are literally thousands of academics in universities all over the world studying international relations. Why is it that almost none of them give credence to these theories? Your favorite text “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” is from 1972.
As for the ‘confessions’ of the supposed architects of conspiracy, are you totally naive? People bluster all the time. But mostly, their plans don’t work out. Conversely, those who achieve power give far too little credit to luck and timing.
Seeing patterns where there are none is an evolutionary leftover of what Daniel Dennett calls the “hyperactive agent detection device.” It’s what causes clams to close their shells, and flies to take off at the slightest breeze or shadow. Higher animals have learned that this is a waste of energy, and have developed the ability to distinguish false threats from real ones. But there are strong remnants of this evolutionary response which cause even humans to impose some kind of agency on elements arising from chaos and random causal chains. Humans create imaginary supernatural agents by the same methods. This was the point of my article.
Holding these simplistic beliefs is sure a hell of a lot less work than actually studying and understanding complex phenomena. (You’d have to submit to intellectual discipline, and subordinate wishes to facts, for starters). But for your own sake, I’d recommend you try.
Basic human nature and evolutionary psychology is a good place to start. (The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker, etc.) Then I’d move on to game theory and agent-based modeling. And then with that background, read some up-to-date undergraduate economics or international relations textbooks, (or The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman) Or maybe even take a course or two. Oh, that’s right, you can’t: the university professors are all in the pockets of the conspirators.
Give me a break.
(For further reading: Here is Robert James Bidinotto from the objectivist center, with a startlingly similar viewpoint as I outlined in my original post on this issue. Conspiracy theory truly represents the religious impulse misdirected toward the political world.)