ZOG Ate My Brains

[salvorhardin]

A brief, but decent overview of contemporary thinking about conspiracism and why it fails as a worldview. Also a good jumping off point for reading further on the topic.

ZOG Ate My Brains
New Internationalist Magazine, October 2004
http://www.newint.org/issue372/zog.htm

G William Domhoff, author of several books on how powerful élites try to shape political and economic policies, distinguishes his techniques for researching power structures from those used by conspiracists. Domhoff complains: ‘There is no falsifying a conspiracy theory. Its proponents always find a way to claim the élite really won, even though everyday people stop some things, or win some battles.’ Author Holly Sklar agrees: ‘When I write about influential élite planning groups such as the Trilateral Commission, I don’t portray them as omnipotent puppet masters manipulating politicians and policies in a vast conspiracy. When progressives grab on to conspiracy theories it undermines effective strategic analysis, planning and action.’

Even when conspiracy theorists proclaim they are not targeting Jews, conspiracism creates a milieu in which antisemitism can flourish. Many progressives, conservatives, New Agers – even UFO groups – have spoken out against antisemitic conspiracy theories. And an increasing number of activists suggest that conspiracism itself needs to be opposed, especially on the political Left. Lee Quinby, author of Anti-Apocalypse, complains that ‘Progressive thought falters under the weight of apocalyptic and conspiratorial thinking,’ because ‘disagreement and dissent are disallowed, democratic debate is precluded, and differences of opinion are penalized.’ Domhoff agrees: ‘Conspiracism is a disaster for progressive people because it leads them into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators.’

Robert Alan Goldberg writes about this in Enemies Within: the Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. He believes: ‘Healthy scepticism of authority is essential to democracy. The key is to maintain logical consistency while demanding evidence in support of an argument. Conspiracy theories are slippery in their logic and careless of facts and assumptions. They work from a premise or preconception of conspiracy and deny other possible explanations of events. Circumstance, rumour and hearsay serve as evidence and are deemed sufficient for proof.’

Mark Fenster, author of Conspiracy Theories, cautions that we should not fear popular activism or avoid finding simple ways to explain current political issues, ‘but don’t embrace them without understanding their downside risk. And always educate about the complex structures that affect what often appear to their victims as simple dynamics.’ Fenster warns that if our ‘simple, populist narrative slips and becomes racist or antisemitic or exclusionary, then its power to affect positive social and economic change disappears’.

[LARED]

1. Obviously Mr. Domhoff is one the

elites shaping political and economic fortune's for the media and the neocons bent on world domination. :sarcasm:

[salvorhardin]

2. Why do you say that?

Noam Chomsky analyzes systemic institutional structures, while Domhoff analyzes power structures within society. Both are valid methods of analysis and both men are ardent leftists. Check out the website for his book, Who Rules America?
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica

Does this really sound like a person who is one of the "elites shaping political and economic fortune's for the media and the neocons bent on world domination"?

Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, have to make some adjustments in their thinking as well. First and foremost, they have to recognize that demonizing or ignoring the various people to their left is not a smart strategy, if only because the left can sink them via a third party, as the Nader campaign of 2000 tragically showed. On a more positive note, liberals should come to recognize that the energy and dedication leftists bring to the battle could be of great help to the Democrats if there was no possibility of them deserting to a third party at the last minute.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/massey.html

On edit: Added excerpt.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. LARED was anticipating the argument against Dumhoff, salvor n/t

[salvorhardin]

4. Oh! OK! I'm sorry LARED.

I misinterpreted your :sarcasm: smiley.

Thanks boloboffin.

[LARED]

5. No problem (n/t)

[Lithos]

6. Excellent article.

Thanks

:thumbsup:

[Grateful for Hope]

15. Lithos

I would be interested in your response to my post.

Thank you in advance.


On edit: original post appeared to be confrontative which was not my intent.

[Grateful for Hope]

7. It cannot be denied

that many of the hypotheses we see here in this forum are described in this article. However, the OCT also falls into this category. For example, this excerpt by Mark Fenster

Fenster warns that if our ‘simple, populist narrative slips and becomes racist or antisemitic or exclusionary, then its power to affect positive social and economic change disappears’.

accurately describes what happened to Muslims after 9/11. Since the FBI does not appear to have enough evidence to link OBL with 9/11, and, we have yet to see definitive proof of the culpability of the accused 19 hijackers, the "simple populist 9/11 narrative" may very well be only a narrative, and may have little to do with the truth.

Larissa Alexandrovna succinctly describes this narrative as a "crusade" in her Huffington Post article about how the media has treated Mel Gibson after his drunken debaucle:

Compare that with a "crusade" ushered in by the Bush administration against Muslims, the rampant racism against African Americans and the inexcusable and criminal - in my opinion - failure of the federal government to show any concern for New Orleans and the poor, elderly, and ill who were unable to leave.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/mirror-mirror-the-passi_b_26620.html

I personally saw this "crusade" in action in October, 2001, when I had to fly to Florida when my mother was dying. I flew out of LaGuardia, and, I saw at the security check-in several people with a ME appearance being detained to the side while everyone else was allowed to pass through the checkpoint.

Again, in Atlanta, I saw a ME family being detained just before boarding their plane. They had already gone through security, but still, they were subjected to wand and carry-on searches. They had two very small children who were also being searched. I found this entire incident very offensive. The parents looked (and I am sure felt) very humiliated.

Slightly OT, I read an interesting article on Paradigms and conspiracies, and, in many ways, it reminded me of what I see in this forum.

Of particular interest was a description of the difference between dicussion and dialog (we typically "discuss" here). The article is not allowing me to copy-and-paste excerpts for some reason, so I can only pass on the link.

One sentence I particularly liked (it is short enough to type out):

Dialog, in contrast, has a different dynamic. It's purpose is not to establish a "victor" or to prove a question, but to "love the truth" and pursue it.

The article goes on to further describe what constitutes good dialog.

http://www.trufax.org/paradigm/paradigm.html

Almost without exception, what I see here is a competitive kind of posting (myself included) where posters vie to have the last word, and, where there appears to be little interest in entertaining the opposing point of view.

It would be a definite improvement to see more "dialog" here and less "discussion", IMHO.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. Too late to edit

wanted to edit "dialog" to "dialogue" in this post. What was I thinking?

:banghead:

[wildbilln864]

18. Hope I agree with you...

post all the heck they want about conspiracy theorists and their characteristics or psychology, or what ever! The government has still lied to us all! Investigate 911!

[Grateful for Hope]

28. Thank you, wildbill n/t

[Make7]

9. Discussion vs. Dialogue

Discussion vs. Dialogue

David Bohm, the physicist, whose ideas on dialogue follow the Socratic tradition, believed that dialogue is an art that's distinct from ordinary discussion. Discussion works like ping-pong - opinions are tossed back and forth to set whose views will win out. It's a competitive game of scoring points: one-up, one-down, argument and rebuttal. But, discussion has its limits. In discussion, our options are restricted to the starting point positions of each side. Discussion is not designed to increase options, only to narrow options. Discussion operates on a win-lose model.

Dialogue, in contrast, has a different dynamic. It's purpose is not to establish a "victor" or to prove a question, but to "love the truth" and pursue it. We let truth be what it is, whether it happens to fit our paradigm agendas or not. We let our pursuit of the truth spill over our current thought boundaries, drawing us into areas we have not considered before. How does a dialogue response do this? David Bohm mapped out three criteria - three rules of dialogue. These rules cannot be imposed from without or faked. If inwardly we're stuck in a one-up/one-down mode (a control paradigm response), we can try and create a dialogue but it won't happen. The exercise lapses into ping-pong. Real dialogue grows with soul connectedness. In paradigm terms, a dialogue response grows from soul connectedness assumptions and strategies. We simply love the truth and want to explore it in the same spirit with others. Bohm said, "the purpose of dialogue is to go beyond any one individual's understanding. We are not trying to win in a dialogue. We all win if we are doing it right."

...

http://www.trufax.org/paradigm/paradigm.html

You may want to consider starting a thread about this subject. Perhaps the long-time posters can offer their opinions and ideas to help develop a less antagonistic debate around here. Maybe we could even reach some sort of consensus, or at least establish some basic voluntary guidelines. At a very minimum we could raise awareness of what people believe the problems are that limit the dialogue.

It might be worth a try. I know there have been posts discussing these issues before, but if we have a dedicated thread where that is the subject being discussed, it may allow for a more productive exchange of ideas.

- Make7

.   .

[Grateful for Hope]

14. I agree that the topic of dialogue vs. discussion

could use it's own thread. I differ on one point, however. I don't think that one necessarily need be an old-timer here in order to have valuable input into the debate process in this forum.

And, developing voluntary guidelines is an excellent idea.

[Make7]

16. Of course everyone's opinion is welcome.

My intention was more to say that the people that have been around here for a while are more aware of the communication issues and also are the ones with more of an incentive to try to come to some agreement.

Many people come through here and don't stay for very long, they wouldn't necessarily feel the need to adhere to any voluntary guidelines. Of course anyone planning to visit the 911 forum over a significant amount of time should definitely offer their own views on the matter, no matter how long or short a time they've been here.

The other reason I specified long-time posters is that after the thread sinks, they would be the ones that would still remember it after it disappears. Unless we could persuade the administrators and/or moderators to make a 'voluntary posting guidelines' sticky, new and infrequent posters may never even know about the thread.

I simply feel this concerns the people that have been here for a while to a greater degree, but I should have expressed that better in my previous post. I plead a temporary case of inarticulitis.

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

17. Thank you for the explanation

I can see what you mean, and, it makes a lot of sense.

[mirandapriestly]

10. Yes, what is more racist than the official conspiracy theory?nt

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Calm yourself. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

11. delete, duplicate

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Great points Hope.

Another example would be the "Communist Conspiracy" pushed by people like Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover who to some degree singled out Jews as the most likely conspirators/collaborators along with homosexuals, and blacks.

In the case off 9/11 we are told that a "world wide web" of fanatical Muslims are plotting contriving and pulling the strings behind world wide terror. I have seen people post on other sites that Islam is a religion of "hate."

And of course most people are familiar with how the leaders of Germany before WWII singled out Jews as conspiring to destroy the good Aryan people, along with, once again, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, and other minorities.

The difference between these sorts of conspiracy theories and say the assassination of Kennedy or the 9/11 alternate conspiracy theories is that these deal with a specific crime, not with a race, culture, religion, or ethnicity. It's a who done it theory instead of a world wide web of plotters out to bring down the good people theory.

People who insisted on pointing out that it seemed that Oswald acted with other(s) were, of course, eventually vindicated by the house committee on assassinations who concluded that Oswald most didn't act alone. But not before they endured ridicule and scorn.

Anyone old enough to remember probably recalls when FBI head J. Edgar Hoover flat out insisted the Mafia didn't exist. People who disagreed with him about that were ridiculed called ignorant or mistaken. Now there's a popular show called the Sopranos and a string of movies called the Godfather, and the Italian anti- defamation league not with standing, not many people are particularly considered to be vehemently anti- Italian.

Go figure.

[Lithos]

20. I think this is the post you asked for an opinion

I am seeing several different ideas being discussed in your post. The first appears to be about how Muslims seem to be made the scapegoats for 9/11 and are somehow involved in a way comparable to how Jews have historically been treated. The second is about dialogue. I am not going to talk about this last one.

There is a bit of a misnomer about what a conspiracy theory is. In a way the phrase assumes a meaning different from the sum total of the words. A conspiracy theory is usually defined not as a theory about a conspiracy which is how it is often used here in the 9/11 forum (note: theory about a conspiracy carries an assumption a conspiracy happened), but rather a conspiracy theory is an irrational (unknowable) theory whose limits and circumscription (boundaries of definition) are extremely vague and often undefined to the point that it is impossible to create an adequate proof test. Conspiracy theories frequently assign hidden motivation to a group or individual in a way which cannot be debunked or irrefuted and are frequently (as in the case of anti-Semitism thru the years), a psychological salve used to "explain" events or "justify" a situation to force fit into a specific world view. Some people do this not because they necessarily believe it, but because it makes a good tool to mislead others in a way which benefits the misleader.

The reason why I will disagree with you about equivalenting post 9/11's bigotry with the multi-millenia of anti-Semitism has to do with the complicated nature of bigotry against Jews versus the highly simplistic one in the mainstream against Muslims.

Ignoring your statement about whether or not the 19 hijackers were not those men frequently attributed to the deed, the main conspiracy against Muslims at this time is one fueled by a simplistic understanding of the RW meme of "Clash of civilizations" which was often spread by the talking heads post 9/11 coupled with repeated graphic details of Taliban justice, speeches by Bin Laden, and the suicide bombers in Israel to generate an image where Muslims were unstable and likely to suicide themselves at a moment's notice in attempt to destroy the West. All poppycock of course, but also a very simple one which is likely to pass thru fairly quickly. Yes, there will be those who will spin off and create more virulent forms of this, but they will likely not have the same weight.

In contrast, Jews have had several thousand years of officially sponsored bigotry aimed at them. First there were many official programs against the Jewish religion by the Romans, Persians and the Muslims where they were blamed and accused of fomenting rebellion and deicide. Later with the rise of nation states along ethnic lines, Jews being ubiquitous and for the most part culturally distinct from the host population were accused first of being un-patriotic and seditious to ultimately masterminds of a great cabal ala the International Jew and Protocols. There is now a debate whether or not another wrinkle of anti-Semitism has arisen now following the foundation of Israel as a nation state and concerns itself with the notion that new forms of bigotry have been assigned to the ideas of Zionism and Israeli (such as being in a genocide against the Palestinians) or whether these expressions are just intentional conflations of the term "Jew" with more publicly palatable stereotypes of Israel and Zionist. All of this is still in play at the moment.

The other point I wish to highlight concerns the slight suggestion I'm reading into your post about exclusivity between anti-Semititic conspiracy theories and anti-Muslim. I draw this mostly because you only provided one line of thought in your post. I totally agree that 9/11 fueled the spread of many tailored answers designed to provide simple easily to digest answers to an extremely complicated reality and that this included a rise in anti-Muslim fear, but I also think that there are many examples out now where it fueled a rise in anti-Semitism.

Side note:

Larissa's accusation against the media and their treatment of Mel Gibson is a rather straight up example of a conspiracy theory as it attempts to assign a motivation to MSM which is ill-defined and thus unprovable.

L-

[Grateful for Hope]

27. Thank you very much for this response

I have to go to work now, but, I will give this the attention it deserves this evening.

Again, thank you.

[Bryan Sacks]

29. a reply to Lithos

Lithos,

I'd like to make a few points about your posts in this forum:

1. I think you have misidentified the essence of 'conspiracy theory' as it is commonly used in the derogatory sense. The 'official story' of 9/11 is not considered to be a conspiracy theory in the derogatory sense because it posits a theory of the attacks whereby 'outsiders' conspired to attack a supposed enemy. The derogatory sense of conspiracy theory is typically reserved for those theories that suggest a conspiracy on the part of those who are either supposed to be loyal to, or directly charged with protecting, those the conspiracy theory claims they conspired against.

2. Certain 'derogatory' conspiracy theories as defined above, if they are forwarded with adequate circumspection, are certainly amenable of proof. The theory, for instance, that 'Pakistani intelligence arranged the 9/11 attacks at the behest of elements within the US intelligence structure' can certainly be proved o disproved with perfect access to information.

Structuralist theories, on the other hand, are not typically amenable to proof. Even brilliant analyses of media of the kind forwarded by Chomsky and Herman cannot neither predict events in the field they anaylze, nor 'prove' that any one example examined occurred due to the filtering of information they propose. What their theory can do, and in my opinion has done, is show patterns in media coverage that are very well explained by reference to their theory. That's good enough for me, but it's different than offering 'proof'.

3. A regrettable tendency of many who denigrate responsibly-forwardly conspiracy theories is to argue against conspiracism as a worldview, rather than the particular theory being forwarded. That is a red herring. Conspiracism as an explanatory scheme is, as many have said here, open to considerable criticism. I certainly don't favor it. What is too often missed is that the structural features of power operate in a way that enables the existence of operational conspiracies and their subsequent covering up. There is no contradiction here. Conspiracies are in fact a part of the way we are systematically governed, and structuralist theories that fail to take this into account are thereby limited in their explanatory power.

I welcome replies from anyone.

[Lithos]

36. Response

1. I think you have misidentified the essence of 'conspiracy theory' as it is commonly used in the derogatory sense. The 'official story' of 9/11 is not considered to be a conspiracy theory in the derogatory sense because it posits a theory of the attacks whereby 'outsiders' conspired to attack a supposed enemy. The derogatory sense of conspiracy theory is typically reserved for those theories that suggest a conspiracy on the part of those who are either supposed to be loyal to, or directly charged with protecting, those the conspiracy theory claims they conspired against.

A Conspiracy theory may or may not be considered a "derogatory" response or label to the person originating the claim. For instance, there have been large periods of time where anti-Semitic conspiracy beliefs enjoyed wide-spread support among populations and governments. I purposefully avoided this portion of discussion as it often includes a significant amount of projection. In truth, much of your comments made erroneous assumptions this was not only my intent, but I was talking in more general terms than just the Muslim/Jewish CT's which was the main topic under discussion.

2. Certain 'derogatory' conspiracy theories as defined above, if they are forwarded with adequate circumspection, are certainly amenable of proof. The theory, for instance, that 'Pakistani intelligence arranged the 9/11 attacks at the behest of elements within the US intelligence structure' can certainly be proved o disproved with perfect access to information.

Structuralist theories, on the other hand, are not typically amenable to proof. Even brilliant analyses of media of the kind forwarded by Chomsky and Herman cannot neither predict events in the field they anaylze, nor 'prove' that any one example examined occurred due to the filtering of information they propose. What their theory can do, and in my opinion has done, is show patterns in media coverage that are very well explained by reference to their theory. That's good enough for me, but it's different than offering 'proof'.

It is a general truism conspiracy theories rely on inductive (moving from specific context to a general one - eg. I see three white cars, hence all cars must be white.) as opposed to deductive (from a general context to a specific one - eg. I know 50% of all cars sold each year in Japan are white and that this has been true for 30 years and that the average lifespan of a car in Japan is 3 years, so it is reasonable to expect half of all cars on the road in Japan to be white) reasoning.

In a case with perfect access to information, there is no need for an inductive theory, all theories at that point are deductive. Ergo, there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Theory.

3. A regrettable tendency of many who denigrate responsibly-forwardly conspiracy theories is to argue against conspiracism as a worldview, rather than the particular theory being forwarded. That is a red herring. Conspiracism as an explanatory scheme is, as many have said here, open to considerable criticism. I certainly don't favor it. What is too often missed is that the structural features of power operate in a way that enables the existence of operational conspiracies and their subsequent covering up. There is no contradiction here. Conspiracies are in fact a part of the way we are systematically governed, and structuralist theories that fail to take this into account are thereby limited in their explanatory power.

Trying to understand why Conspiracy Theories exist and why specific ones exist is a complicated discussion.

[Bryan Sacks]

37. I appreciate the reply . . .

and will consider taking up this subject on a fresh thread.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. Please do so, Bryan.

I was thinking of doing the same thing, and I have not as yet responded to lithos' post. I am still thinking about this issue, and would like to express my views eventually.

[Jazz2006]

21. While I personally don't doubt the personal experiences you set out, Hope

e.g.

I personally saw this "crusade" in action in October, 2001, when I had to fly to Florida when my mother was dying. I flew out of LaGuardia, and, I saw at the security check-in several people with a ME appearance being detained to the side while everyone else was allowed to pass through the checkpoint.

Again, in Atlanta, I saw a ME family being detained just before boarding their plane. They had already gone through security, but still, they were subjected to wand and carry-on searches. They had two very small children who were also being searched. I found this entire incident very offensive. The parents looked (and I am sure felt) very humiliated.


you and some of your closest cohorts in this forum have made it a point (repeatedly) to say that personal anecdotes are worthless and should not even be mentioned here.

While I happen to disagree with those repeated assertions about personal anecdotes being worthless and unmentionable, and while I happen to think that personal anecdotes can and often are useful and worthwhile, it would be wrong not to note that you've made a point of posting a contrary view in the past, it would be wrong not to note that you've agreed with that contrary view in the past, and it would be wrong not to note that you are now doing something entirely contrary to those prior posts and views in posting your personal anecdotes.

Bottom line, how could I not, in good conscience, point out this particular inconsistency?

That said, thanks for sharing your personal anecdote. I think it is one that is shared by many, many people, and one that thousands can relate to.

Edit for grammar and clarity.

[Grateful for Hope]

22. on second thought

Ignoring the apparent insensitivity of your post, since you are the one making the accusation that I, personally, have demeaned personal experience here "repeatedly", please provide examples. I don't care what other posters have posted. Please provide examples only of what I have posted.

These examples should not include examples of repeating what others have told you, but, what you have actually experienced first-hand.

I have expressed doubt about eyewitness accounts to traumatic events. However, in this particular case, no other traumatic event was taking place simultaneously with my observations. The traumatic event was my mother's death - which was a separate incident and happened after these observations took place.

I believe I have also expressed doubt about second-hand accounts. My post does not contain second-hand accounts.

on edit: changed my post because I am quite tired of unfounded accusations and decided to address this issue.

[greyl]

23. Your post is slightly messed up.

I feel for your surrounding circumstances in you anecdote. The death of a parent is an excruciating experience. It's constant unmitigated pain.

However, are you suggesting that if someone mentions a dying parent in a post that the post is immune from any analytical responses, but personal attacks are fine?
Or, should people just make sure to say "sorry your parent died 5 years ago" before offering a reply that deals with the actual issue at hand in thread?

[Grateful for Hope]

24. To quote Boloboffin

"Wait 30 minutes before responding". I have edited the content of my post, so, despite your efforts to capture the original, it is now moot.

Nice try.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

33. "it is now moot" - no, it isn't...

someone else captured it.

but... nice try.

P.S. Must have been a nice subthread you had going there that was all deleted. Sorry I missed it.

[Jazz2006]

30. Insensitivity? Huh?

I was addressing the personal observations that you described in relation to the topic of the thread, what's "insensitive" about that?

[Jazz2006]

31. It's past editing time, so a secondary post....

Was I supposed to assume that your post was about your mother's death - rather than about the subject matter of the thread - because you mentioned it in passing in a 5 word aside as part of your 1000 word post?

That seems to be what you’re suggesting and that seems really bizarre to me.

Look, I'm not unsympathetic about your mother's death. I've been there, and it's a terrible, horrible, awful, horrific, unprecedented and outrageusly painful experience, and very close to being the worst experience of my life. So, I can certainly relate, and anyone who has experienced the loss of a parent, especially a mother, has my condolences - it's a tough loss to deal with, absolutely no question.

But I don't understand how your mentioning your mother's death as an aside (5 words out of 1000) in an internet post on a wholly unrelated subject matter suddenly makes it "insensitive" for me to respond to the actual substance of your post dealing with the subject matter of the thread, which had nothing to do with your mother's death.

The more I look at it, the more I am baffled by your allegation that my post was "insensitive" - I don't think it was at all, and it seems that you think it was "insensitive" only because I didn't address your mother's death. Well, I'm sorry, but I didn't think that your mother's death was the subject matter of the conversation, and as set out in my post, I was responding to the parts of your post that dealt with the subject matter of the thread.

[Grateful for Hope]

35. I would like to see some proof of your allegations. n/t

[Jazz2006]

39. So, are you backing off the "insensitivity" claim?

[Grateful for Hope]

40. You can't prove your allegations n/t

[Jazz2006]

41. Are you backing off of your "insensitivity" claim or not?

Simple question, really.

[Grateful for Hope]

42. You are on the attack because you can't back your allegations.

this is what I expected.

[Jazz2006]

43. I'm just asking a question - which you still haven't answered.

Are you backing off your "insensitivity" claim or aren't you?

Simple question.

Why won't you answer it?

[Grateful for Hope]

44. My question was asked first, and you have ignored it

the important issue here is that you made allegations in your original post that you have not supported with one iota of proof.

Whether or not you are insensitive is subjective. Whether or not I believe you are insensitive is based on perception.

What you indicated about me is either true or not true, and is not based on perception. I know it to be false, and, it is up to you to prove it is true.

[Jazz2006]

45. Not so.

Your first response was to call me "insensitive" ~ so the questions remains, are you backing off of that now or not?

Edit typo.

[Grateful for Hope]

46. Ok, I guess you can't prove your allegations.

nothing more needs to be said, unless you want to keep at the insensitive angle. Knock yourself out.

[Jazz2006]

47. Oh, I guess you haven't the courage of your convictions.

Enough said.
Knock yourself out.


Edit to add: Don't blame me for what you are now calling the "insensitive angle" ~ that was wholly your own doing. You made it up in the first place. You initiated it. And now you can't or won't respond to it. Gee, go figure.

Sheesh.

[mirandapriestly]

32. I've never seen you do that , Hope.eom

[reprehensor]

12. THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK

A brief, but decent overview of contemporary thinking about conspiracism and why it's common. Also a good jumping off point for reading further on the topic.

"THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK" by James Fetzer.

...We need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys knock off a 7/11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, and now Halliburton as it exploits the opportunities for amassing profits in Iraq. Insider trading is a simple example, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as "conspiracies". The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving JFK and 9/11.

One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory", too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?

There is a certain ingenuity in combining "conspiracy" with "theory", because the word "theory" can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, conjecture, or guess to denigrate one account or another for political or ideological reasons without acknowledging that "theory" can also be used in the stronger sense of an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis. Consider Newton's theory of gravitation or Einstein's theory of relativity as instances. The psychological ploy is to speak as though all "theories" were guesses, none of which ought to be taken seriously. Various different cases, however, can present very different problems. Evidence can be scarce, for example, or alternatives might be difficult to imagine.

Moreover, there are several reasons why different persons might arrive at very different conclusions in a given case. These include that they are not considering the same set of alternative explanations or that they are not employing the same rules of reasoning. The objectivity of science derives, not from transcending our human frailties, but from its inter-subjectivity.2 Different scientists confronting the same alternatives, the same evidence, and the same rules of reasoning should arrive at all and only the same conclusions about which hypotheses are acceptable, which are rejectable, and which should be held in suspense. And, in the search for truth, scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence, a condition called the requirement of total evidence, and is otherwise fallacious...

continued...
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

[mirandapriestly]

34. Yes, for some reason " conspiracy theory"

has a negative connotation, when it actually, as the Fetzer article states describes a very common occurrence. The pejorative implication comes in, I think, as a way of silencing people who suspect the government of engaging in conspiracies which are mostly hidden from the public view. The article in GD on the CIA instructing assets to counter those who speculate on alternate explanations for what happened to JFK reminds me of one way in which such negative associations may have been formed.

Further, as Hope explained the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that the "official" version of the events on 9-11 are anything more than a conspiracy theory either.