The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms

[Diane_nyc]

I would like to have a serious discussion about the multiple meanings of the highly ambiguous and loaded term "conspiracy theory" and the related term "conspiracism."

A few relevant past threads:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=207795&mesg_id=207795">CLOSING IN...It Looks Like A Conspiracy


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=180940&mesg_id=180940">My perspective on Conspiracy Theories and their hardcore adherents


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210224&mesg_id=210224">Complete bullshit conspiracy theories. (Why do we tolerate these people?)

In none of these threads was the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory" seriously discussed. Mostly, people just yelled at other people for not agreeing with them on the meaning. In those threads (e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=207795&mesg_id=210217">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210224&mesg_id=210589">here) and in various other threads a few weeks ago, I tried asking various people to provide their definitions, but to no avail.

I'll be posting some of my own thoughts here in this thread later.

[Diane_nyc]

1. Chip Berlet and "conspiracism"

As I've pointed out elsewhere (e.g. in my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/chip-berlet-and-conspiracism/">Chip Berlet and “Conspiracism”), Berlet is inconsistent in his use of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism." He will make an argument based on one sense of a term, but then apply that argument to another sense of the term.

For example, on his page titled "http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism-911.html">Post 9/11 Conspiracism," he distinguishes between "conspiracism" and possible real conspiracies as follows:

People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a “secret team” or a tiny club of “secret elites.” The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism.

But he then applies the term "conspiracism" to any and all hypotheses about 9/11 in which anyone in the government may have played any role whatsoever that was in any way more sinister than mere incompetence. Such theories do not necessarily entail an overall worldview in which “History itself … is .. controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy” or the idea that “all major world events” are “primarily the product of a secret conspiracy.” Some of the more extreme and blatantly ridiculous MIHOP theories, such as no-planes video fakery, do necessarily entail an impossibly vast conspiracy, thus implying "conspiracism" in the strict sense. But many other, more reasonable suspicions about 9/11, including the more reasonable "inside job" hypotheses (e.g. the idea that real live human hijackers might have been recruited by an agent provocateur), do not necessarily imply belief in any form of "conspiracism" in the strict sense

More generally, "conspiracism" in the strict sense is not the same thing as "conspiracy theories" in the sense of controversial allegations of government wrongdoing. But Berlet often applies the term "cnspiracism" to the latter, while defining it as the former.

[Bassman66]

3. Does anyone have the minutes of the last Bilderberg meeting? nt

[Diane_nyc]

4. What point are you trying to make here? Could you please clarify/elaborate? nt

[Bassman66]

5. I'm just asking if anyone has the minutes to the last Bilderberg meeting.

The one where hundreds of people attended.

It's impossible to keep the lid on a conspiracy involving hundreds of people I'm told.

Does anyone even know what they do?

It you mention Bilderberg you get the normal "conspiracy theorist" raised eyebrows even though it's perfectly justified.

My theory is that a good portion of the worlds rich and powerful conspire behind closed doors on ways to stay rich and powerful. My theory is that that doesn't necessarily involve the well-being of the rest of the human race.

The reason I mentioned this is because it touches on a quote in your post.

[Diane_nyc]

7. Berlet's article "ZOG Ate My Brains"

In the O.P. of the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=174539&mesg_id=174539">Lyndon LaRouche: "fascist political movement with echoes of neonazi ideology", boloboffin quotes the article http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/">ZOG Ate My Brains: Conspiracy theories about Jews abound. Chip Berlet unpacks their appeal. That article begins by defining "conspiracy theories" as follows:

The idea that a secret group of powerful people is conspiring to control world events is centuries old, and it is seeing a troubling resurgence on the political Left. Unlike most progressive theories about political power that stress systemic, institutional or structural analyses, conspiracy theories claim a handful of sinister plotters are mucking things up.

The above is pretty much the same as Berlet's definition of "conspiracism" that I discussed earlier, and which I'll refer to as "conspiracism im the strict sense." Berlet then adds, "This often devolves into charges that ‘The Jews’ are behind some sinister plan for global subversion."

But then later he claims the following to be the essence of what he calls "destructive conspiracy theories":

The specific allegations change based on time and place, but the basic elements of destructive conspiracy theories remain the same:

Dualistic division
The world is divided into a good ‘Us’ and a bad ‘Them’.

Demonizing rhetoric
Our opponents are evil and subversive... maybe subhuman.

Targeting scapegoats
‘They’ are causing all our troubles – we are blameless.

Apocalyptic timetable
Time is running out and we must act immediately to stave off a cataclysmic event.

In fact, even Berlet himself is unable to avoid the above traits of "destructive conspiracy theory.". The article http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/">Zog Ate My Brains itself exemplifies the very pattern it's complaining about here. It can be summed up as follows:

- Dualistic division: The political world is divided between progressives and right wingers. Progressive political movements like the anti-war movement have been infiltrated and subverted by right-wingers with their evil conspiracy theories.

- Demonizing rhetoric: Those evil conspiracy theories almost always lead to anti-semitism!

- Targeting scapegoats: We must purge those evil conspiracy theorists from our progressive progressive movements, ior they'll destroy our movements from within!

To be fair, the article doesn't contain an explicit timetable, but the following is implied:

- Apocalyptic timetable: We must purge those evil conspiracy theorists ASAP, or our progressive political movements will die of despair and bigotry!

The above four traits of "destructive conspiracy theory" are characteristic of most war propaganda.

They are also typical of the propaganda of probably all political movements whatsoever, whether left-wing, right-wing, or anything in-between. Has anyone here ever received a political fund-raising letter, for any political cause whatsoever, which did not have the above four traits, to at least some degree?

Below, for example, are some ideas that probably almost all of us here would agree with, except perhaps for some minor nit-picking:

- Dualistic division: Progressives believe that society as a whole should take some responsibility for human well-being, whereas right-wingers favor a dog-eat-dog economic system

- Demonizing rhetoric: The Bush administration is evil and barbaric. They've even promoted torture! And, of course, they could only be expected to let lots of people die in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Obviously they'd rather spend our tax dollars on waging an unprovoked aggressive war.

- Targeting scapegoats: These days, Republicans are the party of unprovoked aggressive war. And they're happy to drive up the national debt by sending us off to endless war. "Fiscal conservativism" just means not spending money on anything that would actually benefit society. They'll bankrupt this country completely if we let them.

- Apocalyptic timetable: We absolutely must elect a Democratic President this fall. If we allow a Republican to be elected, he'll drag us into war with Iran and may totally bankrupt the U.S.A.!

Any complaints about the above? (Yeah, I know - my wording isn't snappy enough. I'm sure someone here can write a catchier version of the above.)

Back to Berlet's article. He writes:

Conspiracy theory is sometimes called conspiracism. Michael Barkun, author of A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, contends that conspiracism attracts people because conspiracy theorists ‘claim to explain what others can’t. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.’ There is an appealing simplicity in dividing the world sharply into good and bad and tracing ‘all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents’.

That's probably true of "conspiracism" in the strict sense of the term: the worldview in which all (or nearly all) political, social, and economic problems are blamed on an ongoing, concerted plot by some secret, world-micromanaging group such as "the Illuminati," or the "Elders of Zion," or Larouche's "British banking interests," or whatever.

But then:

Barkun notes that ‘conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others’. For conspiracists, ‘the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions’

It seems to me that people of every political persuasion consider themselves to be more enlightened than everyone else. For example, anti-"conspiracists" such as Chip Berlet get to look down on the brainwashed herd of populist "conspiracists."

Conspiracism often gains a mass following in times of social, cultural, economic, or political stress. Immigration, demands for racial or gender equality, gay rights, power struggles between nations, and war can all can be viewed through a conspiracist lens. Conspiracism started as a way to defend the status quo, but it spawned a flipside where the conspiracy is perceived as controlling the government. This was a central motif of the 1950s ‘Red Scare’ when fears of global communist subversion were a common conspiracist script.

Agreed that the more fanatical forms of anti-Communism were indeed "conspiracist" in the strict sense, blaming all manner of social ills on alleged Communist infiltration and subversion. I remember None Dare Call It Treason, for example.

But then:

Today, Arabs and Muslims are portrayed in a similar demonizing way as conspiring against Western culture.

Hmmm. Maybe I just haven't yet read enough right wing propaganda, but I don't recall coming across any alleged conspiracy which would be to Muslims as the alleged "Elders of Zion" are to Jews. Nor do I recall coming across an anti-Muslim near-equivalent of Henry Ford's The International Jew. Certainly there has been plenty of bigotry against Muslims. I've run into some extremely paranoid fear-mongering against Muslims (e.g. the crusade against Debbie Almontaser). I've also run into some very obnoxious polarizing rhetoric, such as referring to all non-Muslim defenders of the civil rights of Muslims as "dhimmis" (implying subservience to the Muslims). And I've also come across plenty of racism against Arabs, e.g. referring to Palestinians as "animals." But I haven't yet run into any anti-Arab or anti-Muslim polemics that could be called "conspiracist" in the strict sense.

Of course, there have been various official "conspiracy theories" such as those linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. But even those are not "conspiracism" in the strict sense, because neither Al Qaeda nor Saddam Hussein has ever (as far as I'm aware) been alleged to control the world.

If anyone here knows of any such truly "conspiracist" (in the strict sense) anti-Muslim or anti-Arab propaganda, I would appreciate it very much if someone could PM me a link (since posting said link here in the forum would be against the rules).

Sadly, as tensions in the Middle East have boiled over, an increasing number of Arabs and Muslims have grabbed onto antisemitic conspiracy theories to explain devastating struggles over land and power. This is evidenced by the popularity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the region where they have been repackaged into television series broadcast from Lebanon and Egypt.

That is certainly true, alas.

Antisemitic conspiracism is aggressively peddled to progressives by several rightwing groups including the international network run by Lyndon LaRouche, a frequently unsuccessful US presidential candidate. While LaRouche rhetoric can seem bonkers, his followers are successful in recruiting students on college campuses and in networking with some Black Nationalist groups. Sometimes Arab publications circulate articles from LaRouche group analysts. When LaRouche publications condemn the neoconservative policy advisers to President Bush as the ‘Children of Satan’, it echoes historic antisemitic rhetoric about evil Jewish conspiracies tracing back to medieval Europe.

That is true.

Why would progressives embrace conspiracism? In the 1980s, isolationists on the Right, and anti-war activists on the Left grew suspicious of President Ronald Reagan’s support for covert action overseas and political repression at home. As they interacted, some progressive groups began circulating allegations about ‘Secret Teams’, ‘Shadow Governments’, or ‘The Octopus’, that echoed historic antisemitic conspiracy theories found in rightwing publications. With the collapse of communism in Europe many rightists shifted scapegoats to claim a New World Order conspiracy was manipulating the US Government. Again, some leftists adapted this rhetoric.

Here things get ambiguous. Talk of "secret teams" or "shadow governments" may or may not be "conspiracist" in the strict sense, depending on exactly what one means by those terms and how one views them. However, to the extent that some people may find these terms offensive because of a history of bigoted use, I agree that it would be advisable to use other terminology, at the very least.

It is true that, with the end of the Cold War, a significant minority of political conservatives became anti-war and anti-imperialist and, as a result, formed (or tried to form) alliances with progressives on commen issues, resulting in some mutual influences.

During the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists spoke of a ‘Jewish Lobby’ in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism.1

‘When we blame US foreign policy on Israel or some Jewish cabal,’ it ‘takes the heat off those who are the real decision makers,’ says Penny Rosenwasser, a board member of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace. ‘We need to aim our criticism at the proper targets. US foreign policy is influenced more by corporate interests, the Christian Right and the arms manufacturers than by the Israeli Government.’ Rosenwasser points out that it is US foreign policy that needs to be challenged: ‘Blaming scapegoats diverts us from our work for human rights and justice.’ She sees that some people ‘blur the distinction between the Jewish people and the policies of the Israeli Government’. That’s what happens with phrases like ‘the Jewish Lobby’ where the work of Jews seeking justice for Palestinians is simply erased.

That is certainly true.

Berlet then devotes a paragraph to the rumor about the 4,000 Jews who were supposedly warned to stay home on 9/11.

Out on the furthest conspiracist limb are race hate groups and neo-Nazis who are obsessed with the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) – an idea that is the modern incarnation of the infamous Protocols.

But such ideas are by no means the preserve of the extremist fringe. Brasher says: ‘We tend to look at apocalyptic and conspiracist belief and laugh it off and push it aside. Yet in many ways it is pervasive. I came back to visit the United States after the attacks on 9/11 and was amazed to see apocalyptic rhetoric being spun out by elected officials and people on the Right and Left.’

There are powerful forces that shape our reality. Conspiracies do take place. How we approach the workings of élite groups and individuals, however, is crucial if we are to avoid traversing down the conspiracists’ path.

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."

A valid distinction. I agree with the desire to avoid "conspiracism" in the strict sense. But then Holly Sklar says:

When progressives grab on to conspiracy theories it undermines effective strategic analysis, planning and action.

Depends how broadly or how narrowly she is using the term "conspiracy theory" here.

Unfortunately, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used to stigmatize any and all as-yet-unproven worries about possible government wrongdoing. Therefore, an overly broad aversion to "conspiracy theory" can do even more to "undermine effective strategic analysis, planning and action," at least regarding any call for government accountability.

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.’

I would agree with this if I could be confident that the above-quoted people were speaking only of "conspiracism" in the strict sense. Alas, people with a bug up their ass about "conspiracism" rarely confine their concerns to "conspiracism" in the strict sense. Instead they prefer to use the term "conspiracism" to stigmatize serious and specific calls for government accountability.

I'll say more later about the remainder of Berlet's article.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. I would have to admit that Berlet's demarcation is unusual.

The left has always been susceptible to JFK conspiracies, but Berlet traces the left CTs to the 1980's only.

ETA: Oh, I see. He's talking antisemitic CTs, and I don't think I've ever heard a version of JFK's assassination that blames it on Jews. If they are out there, I don't care much to know, though.

EATA: And Berlet has done quite a bit of research on the idea that extreme hardcore rightists are wooing the left with conspiracy theories.

http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html

That's the first page of an extensive survey of the problem.

[Diane_nyc]

9. JFK and Jew-haters, etc. Anyhow, what is your definition of "CT"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215993">boloboffin wrote:

ETA: Oh, I see. He's talking antisemitic CTs, and I don't think I've ever heard a version of JFK's assassination that blames it on Jews.

There is indeed such a version, unfortunately.

I've run into several right wing sites that blame JFK's assassination on the Federal Reserve System, an idea which may or may not be paired with claims that the Federal Reserve System is, in turn, controlled by "international bankers" such as the Rothschilds.

(See http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html">Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories by Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C. See especially the section titled http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty9.html">Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it. See also http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_intro.asp">Jewish "Control" of the Federal Reserve: A Classic Anti-Semitic Myth on the ADL site.)

Anyhow, the main topic of this thread is definitions of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism." How do you define "conspiracy theory"?

[Bassman66]

10. Do we know who ultimately owns the Fed?

I was told the Rothchilds owned a big chunk, but is that true?

I really don't know, sorry if it's OT.

[Bassman66]

11. OK I think I see where the Fed Reserve stuff is coming from...

I've been reading the ADL website and they say this:

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_rothschild.asp

Basically in 1983 a newsletter was put out by retired Federal employees (and the ADL says they were NOT extremists) that said the Federal Reserve System "is not a Federal entity but a private corporation owned in part by the following: Rothschild banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers bank of Paris, Israel Moses Seif banks of Italy, Warburg bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bros. bank of New York, Chase Manhattan bank of New York, Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York, Goldman Sachs bank of New York."

This was not an extremist anti-semitic group by any means, there doesn't appear to be an agenda here, there were just describing the organisation they used to work for as they saw it.

The ADL in response to that says this:

"In fact the Federal Reserve Bank of New York —the largest and most significant of the Fed’s 12 banks — lists the banks in the Second Federal Reserve District that are members and stockholders in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. With the exception of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the institutions cited by the NARFE newsletter as allegedly owning and controlling the Federal Reserve system ("Rothschild ...Lazard Brothers ...Israel Moses Seif ...Warburg ...Lehman Brothers ...Kuhn, Loeb ...Goldman, Sachs") were not members of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York."

So does that explain it?

It doesn't say who actually does own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Does anyone know?

This is interesting, I've been reading quite a few other Federal Reserve threads on DU recently (they are some good ones about EO 11110) first I'm interested in Kennedy and second because I'm puzzled as to why a Government would pay interest to a private company to issue money when they could do it themselves without interest.

Again sorry ot this is OT, it's sort of touches on you post about the Federal Reserve Diane.

[Diane_nyc]

12. Federal Reserva questions - places to find some answers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216073">Bassman66 wrote:

It doesn't say who actually does own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Does anyone know?

I don't, but I would suggest the Federal Reserve's own websites as a plice to try to find this out. While there, I would suggest that you also look for the Fed's annual financial reports.

For some more about this issue, see also http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty5.html">Myth #5. The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners by Edward Flaherty.

'm puzzled as to why a Government would pay interest to a private company to issue money when they could do it themselves without interest.

See, on Flaherty's site:

- http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty4.html">Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank
- http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty7.html">Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
- http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty8.html">Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.

See also the comment thread after the post on my blog about http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/some-of-the-rhetoric-against-the-federal-reserve-system/">Some of the rhetoric against the Federal Reserve System. Among other things, that thread contains some interesting links to the one of the Federal Reserve system's websites.

[Bassman66]

13. Thanks, but...

For some more about this issue, see also Myth #5. The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners by Edward Flaherty.

I never asked that question. The nationality is not really an issue, the control of it is and by who.

Thanks for the links, I'll study them.

[Diane_nyc]

15. You indeed implicitly asked that question earlier, or at least a closely related question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216098">Bassman66 wrote:

I never asked that question. The nationality is not really an issue

But http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216065">you did ask, earlier:

I was told the Rothchilds owned a big chunk, but is that true?

The Rothschilds are foreigners. They are well-known European bankers.

[Bassman66]

18. There are no American Rothschilds?

I assumed that because Rothschilds had been closely bound up with the American financial system for so long that they were American.

They're not?

[Diane_nyc]

19. Rumors about the Rothschilds

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216110">Bassman66 wrote:

18. There are no American Rothschilds?

Maybe there are, but the famous ones are/were European.

because Rothschilds had been closely bound up with the American financial system for so long

Have they indeed been "bound up with the American financial system for so long"? That's what many extreme right wingers claim. I don't think it's actually true. If there's any truth it it at all, I don't think the Rothschilds have anywhere nearly as big investments in the U.S. as many have claimed.

This is a topic I admittedly haven't yet researched as thoroughly as I should, but I would urge caution regarding any and all claims about the Rothschilds. Lots and lots of nonsense has been spread about the Rothschilds, by Jew-haters and others.

Please see my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/please-do-not-trust-eustace-mullins-as-an-authority-on-the-federal-reserve-system/">Please do NOT trust Eustace Mullins as an authority on the Federal Reserve System!

I would suggest, furthermore, that you attempt to research these rumors about the Rothschilds on your own, from more reputable sources, before you repeat any more such rumors here on DU. Although I'm sure your intent isn't to promote hatred of Jews, the repetition of too many false rumors about the Rothschilds is likely to be very offensive to Jewish readers of this forum, because of the history of so many Jew-hating propagandists relying on such rumors.

[Diane_nyc]

21. P.S.: Getting info to refute the rumors

I would suggest that you http://www.adl.org/contact_us.asp">contact the ADL to ask if they can recommend some literature refuting various right wing rumors about the Rothschilds, in more detail than the http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_rothschild.asp">brief page about the Rothschilds on the ADL's website.

[Bassman66]

23. That's part of the question.

Have they indeed been "bound up with the American financial system for so long"?

More study needed, they appear to be linked with Morgans and Rockefeller's for a century now.

I don't think the Rothschilds will be losing any sleep over my inquiries.

I have no intention of starting a Jew-hate thing.

[Diane_nyc]

25. Bankers, bigots, and sensitivity to the concerns of long-persecuted groups

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216116">Bassman66 wrote:

More study needed

Agreed. I too need to study this subject more.

they appear to be linked with Morgans and Rockefeller's for a century now.

"Appear to be?" On what basis? Can you cite any respectable sources (as distinct from extreme right wing sources, or sources plagiarizing extreme right wing sources)?

Instead of saying they "appear to be ...," it would probably be better to say that they "are alleged to be ...."

I don't think the Rothschilds will be losing any sleep over my inquiries.

I don't think the Rothschilds themselves will be losing any sleep over your inquiries either. However, some visitors to this forum might, and for understandable reasons.

In general, I think we should be a little extra cautious when discussing topics that have been deeply intertwined with exceedingly vicious bigotry for over a hundred years. Not that we should refrain from discussing them entirely, but I do think some sensitivity is called for. Among other things, that means trying to get more facts before discussing such topics at great length.

I have no intention of starting a Jew-hate thing.

I know you don't. The issue here, regarding our discussion, is sensitivity, not active bigotry.

You apparently don't realize this, but we are dealing with some extremely hot-button issues here. For example, Steven Jones once got himself in big trouble by using the phrase "international bankers." (http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645201360,00.html">Deseret News, Thursday, September 14, 2006.) And the trouble, apparently, didn't come from the bankers.

There is no need to avoid all criticism of bankers. There have been many leftist critics of the IMF, for example, who have not been called bigots. What we need to be careful about is certain specific alleged "banking" issues on which a lot of inflammatory B.S. has been spread by Jew-haters and other extreme right wingers.

Of course, I'm in no position to tell you what to do. I'm just asking you if you could, please, show some sensitivity.

Progressive political activists, in general, need to make an effort to avoid offending people unnecessarily over issues having to do with long histories of bigotry and persecution. The 9/11 Truth movement needs to learn this lesson. It's one of the many reasons why the 9/11 Truth movement has gotten marginalized.

[Bassman66]

26. 'Appear to be?' On what basis?

I read that at the secret meeting 1910 on Jekyll Island organized by J P Morgan to discuss the setting up of the Federal Reserve that the Rothschild family was represented by Kuhn, Loeb & Company, namely Warburg and Schiff. Rothschild were supposedly indirectly represented by these companies and banks that they financed in America.

I think it is through these banks and companies that many people the close relationship between them and American finance in the last century.

I don't quiet understand why examining the history of the American financial industry is offensive to some though.

[SDuderstadt]

29. I'm just curious, Bassman.....

do you even remotely have any idea how the Federal Reserve system actually works?

[Bassman66]

32. I obviously don't, that's why I'm asking, duh. nt

[Diane_nyc]

38. Basic introductory info about the Fed

Some links that were posted in another recent relevant thread:

• http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm">How the Fed Works by Lee Ann Obringer (recommended http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=196808">by SDuderstadt here)


• http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/ch3.html">U.S. Code, Title 12, Chapter 3: Federal Reserve System (recommended http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=197113">by SDuderstadt here)

[Diane_nyc]

61. P.S.: Other important info relevant to the controversy about the Fed

Please see also the following posts of mine in the recent thread about G. Edward Griffin:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=216215">Right wing populism: Political sleight-of-hand


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=216202">Relevant stuff on the "Liberalism Resurgent" website

[SDuderstadt]

60. And you think the best way to educate yourself about the Federal Reserve is to...

ask questions on DU? How would you know if the answers you got were correct? May I also assume that, by your own admission, you don't understand how the Federal Reserve works that you'll refrain from making silly claims about it?

[Diane_nyc]

31. Supposedly ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216124">Bassman66 wrote:

I read that at the secret meeting 1910 on Jekyll Island organized by J P Morgan to discuss the setting up of the Federal Reserve that the Rothschild family was represented by Kuhn, Loeb & Company, namely Warburg and Schiff. Rothschild were supposedly indirectly represented by these companies and banks that they financed in America.

Where did you read this?

Thanks for the "supposedly." All of the above is indeed "supposedly," pending corroboration of any of it from reputable sources.

For a different perspective about that secret meeting and its historical context, please see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html">Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting by Edward Flaherty.

See also the long discussion beginning on http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2582&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30">page 3 of the thread http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2582">We Are Change - September threads on right wing views in the Truth Action forum.

I think it is through these banks and companies that many people the close relationship between them and American finance in the last century.

You seem to have left out a few words, so your meaning in the above sentence isn't clear. However, where most people who spout rhetoric about the Federal Reserve get their ideas from is not any facts about the banks themselves (which most of these people never take the time to double-check), but purely from right-wing propaganda, based on a combination of (1) the writings of Jew-haters like Eustace Mullins and (2) "Austrian school" libertarian economists who hate the Federal Reserve System because it contradicts their free-market dogma.

I don't quiet understand why examining the history of the American financial industry is offensive to some though.

Merely "examining the history of the American financial industry" is not what's offensive. What's offensive is people who spout neo-Nazi and other extreme right wing rhetoric without even realizing that they are doing so.

But I guess you'll be all right if you sprinkle in enough "supposedly's" and "allegedly's" whenever you have occasion to talk about these allegations, pending verification of any of them from a reputable source.

(Note: Edward Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island is not a reputable source. Nor is anything written by Eustace Mullins.)

[Bassman66]

33. I'm not supposed to question American finaciers if they are jewish?

What difference does that make? I don't care if they're jewish, catholic, protestant, muslim or zoroastrian.
How can any sensible discussion of the American banking system take place without talking about these people?

I don't get it.

[Diane_nyc]

37. Just realize that lots of inflammatory B.S. has been spread about bankers, especially Jewish bankers

Therefore, when you read something about a Jewish banker, don't immediately assume it's true. It might be true, but check carefully before you repeat it without qualifiers such as "supposedly" and "allegedly." Otherwise, you're likely to be spouting bullshit neo-Nazi (or other extreme right wing) propaganda without knowing it.

It's fine to question. Just be skeptical of things that have a strong chance of being false and defamatory rumors, until proven otherwise.

Also it would be nice if you could make at least a little extra effort to research this stuff on your own, from reputable sources, if you're going to spend a lot of time talking about it.

[Bassman66]

43. I am researching, asking questions here is part of that.

I'm glad you think that it's not wrong to question anyone even though they are Jewish.
That's an attitude that I don't understand, but I've seen it in action for real.
People of all races and creeds are quite capable of doing bad things, just because someone is of a particular persuasion doesn't mean you should back off.
Why should you?

[Bassman66]

35. Reputable source...

" Edward Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island is not a reputable source."

Why?

[Diane_nyc]

39. G. Edward Griffin is a right wing libertarian polemicist ...

... who also advocates various claims that are highly controversial, to say the least

See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island">Wikipedia page about G. Edward Griffin

[Bassman66]

42. Isn't that an ad hominem attack on him?

I would have thought that addressing the points he makes would be a much better form of attack.

Even right-wing extremists (I thought Griffin worked for the Democrats) speak truth sometimes, it depends on what they are saying.

[Diane_nyc]

46. It was an answer to your question about reputable sources

Yes, even disreputable sources, such as extreme right wing polemicists, do speak the truth sometimes. However, their claims should not be accepted without corroboration from other, better sources.

As for refutation of Griffin's specific claims, I've already provided links to refutations of his claims.

Where did you get the idea that Griffin "worked for the Democrats"? Perhaps you have him confused with someone else?

[Bassman66]

48. He worked for Wallace? nt

[Diane_nyc]

50. Wallace was hardly a typical Democrat, and he ran as an independent (not Democrat) in 1968.

Wallace was an old-fashioned conservative Southern Democrat, of a kind not generally associated with the Democratic Party anymore these days. (Most of them turned Republican around 1980.)

Furthermore, when Griffin worked for Wallace's running mate (in 1968, according to the Wikipedia article on G. Edward Griffin), Wallace didn't run as a Democrat. He ran as an independent and was endorsed by a small conservative third party, the American Independents.

[Bassman66]

55. Wallace served four terms as a Democrat. nt

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bassman66]

14. Ok so the Fed pays it's declared profits back to the Treasury...

...who audits the Fed?

Is it true that no one has the power to audit the Fedreal Reserve?

[Diane_nyc]

16. Audits of the Federal Reserve

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty6.html">Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited, by Edward Flaherty.

Regarding any further questions you may have about the Federal Reserve, I would suggest that you look first at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html">Flaherty's pages and the thread following http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/some-of-the-rhetoric-against-the-federal-reserve-system/">the relevant post on my blog, and then look at the Federal Reserve System's own websites for more details. See also some http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/category/federal-reserve/">other relevant posts on my blog.

[Bassman66]

17. When is an audit not an audit?

If the audits are so good why does Congress feel the need to ask for complete audits?

This one reported in the NY Times in 1989: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED71539F937A1575BC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Why is the Treasury not represented on the board of the Federal Reserve?

[Diane_nyc]

20. There ARE valid criticisms of the Fed, but we need to sort out valid criticisms from nonsense

A book that I've been told contains valid criticisms is http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=9780671675561&atch=h&utm_content=You%20Might%20Also%20Like">Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country by William Greider. I haven't read this book yet. I should at some point. The quoted reviews, on the above-linked page, suggest that it should at least be decent, though outdated. (It was written a long time ago.)

Alas, too many right wingers have muddied the waters with nonsense, so we need to be careful.

[Bassman66]

22. Congress has asked for complete audits.

Which means the ones carries out at the momenet are less than complete.

[Diane_nyc]

24. Your info might be out-of-date

The http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED71539F937A1575BC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all">New York Times article that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216109">you cited here was published way back on August 24, 1989.

I don't know how much more complete, or more independent, etc., the audits of the Fed have been since then.

[Grateful for Hope]

27. Alas, too many right wingers have muddied the waters with nonsense, so we need to be careful.

I agree. There is a lot of nonsense on the internet, and, it is difficult to sift through it to separate fact from fiction.

Looks like you have a pretty good handle on some of the disinfo.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Bassman66]

36. Beating down using ad hominem..

someone said this didn't happen in this forum.

[Bassman66]

44. Note: I never report. nt.

[Diane_nyc]

47. According to the rules, you SHOULD report posts that attack you, rather than reply to them. nt

[Diane_nyc]

49. Back on topic: Edward Flaherty's use of the term "conspiracy theory"

In http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216004">my post about JFK and Jew-haters, etc., I linked to http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html">Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths) by Edward Flaherty.

I happen to agree with what Flaherty says here - or at least most of it. Admittedly, I haven't yet researched this topic in enough depth to know whether Flaherty is correct about every detail.

However, I've come to regard the term "conspiracy theory" as a cheap rhetorical ploy whose too-frequent use sets a dangerous precedent.

As I discussed in other recent posts, the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216184">sci.skeptic FAQ (1997) uses the term "Grand Conspiracty Theory" to distinguish inherently implausible conspiracy claims from other claims that could conceivably be true. Similarly, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216188">Robert Todd uses the term "paranoid conspiracy theory," apparently to make a similar distinction.

However, too many people make no such distinction, instead using the term "conspiracy theory" to lump together everything from David Icke's reptilians to more reasonable worries about possible government wrongdoing.

Where this inevitably leads is to a mentality in which voicing skepticism about official stories can be dismissed as inherently crazy, in much the same way that the former Soviet Union regarded many dissidents as mentally ill.

So, if I were writing a paper debunking nutty right wing claims about the Federal Reserve System, I wouldn't use the term "conspiracy theory." Some of the claims do happen to involve grand-conspiracy claims, in which case I would use the term "grand-conspiracy claims" for those specific claims. Other claims I would refute without using rhetoric about "conspiracy."

[Diane_nyc]

64. Archive of what appears to be Edward Flaherty's original site

I've come across an Internet Archive copy of http://web.archive.org/web/20010407044745/http://members.home.net/flaherty15/conspire.htm">what appears to be the original version of Edward Flaherty's "Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)." It contains some additional sections not found in other copies I've seen, including a page titled http://web.archive.org/web/20010419212446/members.home.net/flaherty15/culture.htm">A glimpse at the American conspiracy culture.

What he calls "the American conspiracy culture" I would call "American right wing populist ideology." (See my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=216215">Right wing populism: Political sleight-of-hand in the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=196707&mesg_id=196707">The Creature from Jekyll Island author G. Edward Griffin interviews Norm Dodd.) Not all so-called "conspiracy theorists" are a part of this.

[Bassman66]

2. "Conspiracy theorist" is almost exclusively used...

...as a term to depict someone as a nut and thereby negating the need to examine what they are saying in any detail (or at all), I have never seen it used in a positive light.

"Conspiracy theory" has become a dirty word in the public conciousness inducing a knee-jerk raising of the eye-brows (yes I know!) whenever you admit you are considering if there is a conspiracy underlying an event especially concerning Government.

Conspiracy theories involving Government that turned out later to be conspiracy facts seem to disappear down the memory hole so that the next time you mention the possibility that the Government is up to no good you are starting at square one again.

However many of the same people are quite happy to consider conspiracies if it involves "bad guys", especially if the TV told them they were "bad guys", you would not normally be considered a "conspiracy theorist" if you talked about Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arabs plotting to create the mayhem we saw on 9/11 or Saddam Hussein plotting to create weapons of mass destruction to use against the west or Iran plotting to make nuclear weapons for the same purpose.

Theories are good. Someone once had a theory that man could fly and they did, that man could go to the moon and they did, that man could split the atom and they did. Some are not so good, people live on Mars for instance, but it was good that that was discussed and the reasoning it used was sound at the time - the "appearance" of canals when looking through a telescope - but with INVESTIGATION this later proved to be not so.

Putting forward a theory should not automatically make someone appear unhinged, proper, full and open investigation of theories should always be the way forward.

[Diane_nyc]

6. Definitions of "conspiracy theory" from dictionary.reference.com

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215933">Bassman66 wrote:

"Conspiracy theory" has become a dirty word in the public conciousness inducing a knee-jerk raising of the eye-brows (yes I know!) whenever you admit you are considering if there is a conspiracy underlying an event especially concerning Government.

Conspiracy theories involving Government that turned out later to be conspiracy facts seem to disappear down the memory hole so that the next time you mention the possibility that the Government is up to no good you are starting at square one again.

Yes indeed.

When this was pointed out in some of the threads listed in the O.P., various official-story defenders angrily insisted that a "conspiracy theory" isn't just a "theory about a conspiracy."

Well, let's look up http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy%20theory">dictionary.reference.com's definitions of "conspiracy theory."

First, two definitions from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

conspiracy theory
–noun
1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

The first of these definitions is indeed, essentially, just a "theory about a conspiracy."

Likewise the definition given further down on the page, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

conspiracy theory
n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

[Diane_nyc]

40. sci.skeptic FAQ (1997): 08: What is a "conspiracy theory"?

The http://skepticx.myweb.uga.edu/skepticism.html">sci.skeptic FAQ, written back in the heyday of Usenet (mid-to-late 1990's), says the following in response to question http://skepticx.myweb.uga.edu/skep_0.html#08">08: What is a "conspiracy theory"?:

There are two general categories of conspiracy theory: Grand and Petty.

A Grand conspiracy theory is a belief that there is a large-scale conspiracy by those in power to mislead and/or control the rest of the world. Consider the following example:

There is a conspiracy amongst the computer programmers to control the world. They are only allowing the public to have simple machines, while they control the really powerful ones. There is a computer in <city> they call "The Beast". It has records about everyone. They use this information to manipulate the politicians and businessmen who ostensibly rule the world into doing their will. The Beast was prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

Grand conspiracy theories divide the world into three groups. The Conspirators, the Investigators, and the Dupes. Conspirators have a vast secret. The Investigators have revealed parts of the conspiracy, but much is still secret. Investigators are always in great danger of being silenced by Conspirators. Dupes are just the rest of us. Often the Conspirators show a mixture of incredible subtlety and stunning stupidity.

Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstantial or evaporates when looked at carefully. The theories can never be disproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as having been planted by the Conspirators. If you spend any time or effort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators then you will be labelled a Conspirator yourself. Of course, nothing a Conspirator says can be believed.

Petty conspiracy theories are smaller than the Grand variety, and sometimes turn out to be true. Watergate and "Arms for Hostages" episodes both started life as Petty conspiracy theories. Just because a theory involves a conspiracy does not make that theory false. The main difference between Grand and Petty Conspiracy Theories is the number of alleged conspirators. Grand Conspiracy Theories require thousands or even millions.

(I've omitted the last two relatively unimportant paragraphs.)

Note the acknowledgment that what the sci.skeptic FAQ calls "Petty Conspiracy Theories" can sometimes turn out to be true.

What the sci.skeptic FAQ calls "Grand Conspiracy Theories" are roughly equivalent to what Chip Berlet defines as "conspiracism" (in the strict sense), which I discussed in detail elsewhere in this thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215932">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215960">here.

[Diane_nyc]

65. Government secrets and the "size of conspiracy" argument

A relevant old post on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=170938&mesg_id=215701">RedSock wrote, in the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=170938&mesg_id=170938">A faulty argument: "The government can't keep anything secret.":

22. Daniel Ellsburg

Daniel Ellsberg, "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers" (paperback, page 43):

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks. Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

my emphasis

I would still say that, other factors being equal, the larger an alleged conspiracy, the less likely it is, and that this is a reasonable argument against "the conspiracy theory of history" - the idea that all major world events are coordinated by one grand conspiracy.

Nevertheless, large-scale conspiracies do exist, and can succeed at least for a while, especially when sponsored by entities with a lot of power and resources, such as intelligence agency black ops.

[Diane_nyc]

41. Robert Todd on "Paranoid Conspiracy Theories"

I'm now looking at a page titled http://www.skepdic.com/illuminati.html">Illuminati, The New World Order & Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists (PCTs) on a website called http://www.skepdic.com/">The Skeptic's Dictionary, which, if my impressions are correct, is popular among skeptics of the JREF stripe. The author is Robert Todd.

The page on "paranoid conspiracy theories" begins by quoting a 1991 speech in which Bush I notoriously used the phrase "New World Order":

What is at stake is more than one small country , it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future. --President George Bush in his state of the union address, January 16, 1991

Next is a paragraph about the Bavarian Illuminati:

The Illuminati was a secret society in Bavaria in the late 18th century. They had a political agenda that included republicanism and abolition of monarchies, which they tried to institute by means of subterfuge, secrecy, and conspiracy, including the infiltration of other organizations. They fancied themselves to be "enlightened" but they had little success and were destroyed within fifteen years of their origin.

No complaints about the above paragraph, except that Robert Todd cites, as his source, a book by Daniel Pipes, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From. It would be nice if Todd had a better source than Daniel Pipes, who comes very close to advocating what some people might call "anti-Muslim conspiracy theories." For example, Pipes was one of proponents of what I consider to be a witchhunt against Debbie Almontaser.

Back to Todd's article on "paranoid conspiracy theories":

Paranoid conspiracy theorists (PCTs) believe the Illuminati cabal still exists, either in its original form or as a paradigm for later cabals. Many PCTs believe "that large Jewish banking families have been orchestrating various political revolutions and machinations throughout Europe and America since the late eighteenth century, with the ultimate aim of bringing about a satanic New World Order."* What George Bush was talking about in his state of the union address in 1991 was no less than the establishment of a single world government with the anti-Christ (whom some say is Bill Clinton (or is he a decoy?), but could be Pat Robertson or George W. Bush) at its head.

The page then goes on to give many other examples of what Todd calls PCT's. Most of them are what the sci.skeptic FAQ (1997) would call "Grand Conspiracy Theories," http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216184">as discussed here. Most are implausible for other reasons too.

After a long series of specific examples, Robert Todd then goes on to say:

Why?

To enter the world of the PCTs is to enter Bedlam. It would be pointless here to examine, much less attempt to refute, the delusions of people who think they have been turned into assassins by mind-control techniques so that they can carry out the will of inbred dynasties, that aliens are controlling the world, that none of the laws of science are actual, that the imagination and the thought of what is possible are better guides than the "physically manifested world," etc. A rational person might think many of the PCTs are joking. There are Internet sites that seem to be parody sites but it is difficult to tell, since there seems to be no belief, however inane or absurd, that the PCTs can't fit into their bizarre worldview. A rational person who never heard of Pat Robertson might well read his New World Order (Word Books, 1994) and think it must be a joke. Could anyone actually believe his rambling paranoia regarding Jewish bankers, Freemasons, Muslims, homosexuals, foreigners, etc.? Apparently so. Still, one wonders why PCTs exist and their numbers seem to be growing.

Of course, governments and some of the very rich have conspired to rule the world in one form or another. There are enough real conspiracies to satisfy even the greatest Pollyanna that one's government and the extremely rich and powerful don't play by the same rules, if they play by any rules at all, as decent folk. Those of us who have watched the U.S. government support one fascist dictator after another because he was "anti-communist" are uncomfortable to find that there are people who are so far to the right of the right-wing that they too want to expose the cover-ups. It is of no use to point out to the PCTs that our government led coups of democratically elected governments, assassinated leaders of nations and provided military and financial aid to thugs and murderers around the world, in a misguided belief that they were saving the world from communism, as well as opening up new markets for capitalist expansion. Many of the leaders and top agents in our government are and were evil and incompetent, but, as inept as they tend to be, even they would recognize the limits of their ambitions.

Thus, Robert Todd seems to be using the term "paranoid conspiracy theory" to distinguish PCT's from the kinds of "conspiracy theories" that he thinks might turn out to be true.

Todd then goes on to say:

But, it is pointless to argue here because the PCTs are expert pseudohistorians: contradictory evidence is used to support rather than refute their notions. Does the U.S. Government go after the world's richest man, Bill Gates? Hah! It's a charade, aimed at getting us off the scent. Wasn't Hitler the one who thought he could rule the world and didn't the Allies stop him? Hitler was a dupe, used to advance the sinister plot to rule the world by the Illuminati.

Todd then compares the PCT's he has read about, in books and on the Internet, with the delusions of some people he has personally known who were clinically insane. He also talks about the possible religious roots of some PCT's.

He then concludes, before the footnotes:

The Cheney/Bush administration has acted remarkably like an administration whose goal is world dominance. It poses as pious while invading countries to make war on them. It allows torture* and spying* on its own citizens in the name of patriotism and defense of liberty. It practices many human rights abuses that it condemns in its enemies. The appointment of Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank seems too good to be true if one is looking for support of this hypothesis. It seems impossible that such bright guys went to war because of bad intelligence. To some it must seem as if the Cheney/Bush regime is trying to encourage terrorism rather than stop it. The more fear they can arouse the longer they can continue their aggression in the name of defense. Even so, there is little evidence that they are part of a global conspiracy. Yet, it's not surprising to see conspiracy websites like that of Alex Jones, who thinks the U.S. has become a police state. (If we were truly a police state Mr. Jones wouldn't have his website or his films.) It also will not be surprising to see a great increase in the number of people who believe in the Cheney/Bush illuminati cabal.

After that is a list of "further reading."

Then, after the "further reading" list, there's a section titled "9/11: A Date That Will Live in Infamy: review by Richard Morrock." Apparently this is a review of one of David Ray Griffin's books, although he forgets to tell us the title of the specific book of Griffin's that he's reviewing. Starting with this blatant blooper, Richard Morrock's review is, in general, carelessly written. For example:

Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane.

It is, to say the least, highly unlikely that a commercial demolition crew would enter a burning building.

Next:

There is the question of what Bush knew on the morning of 9/11 and when he knew it. Some have claimed that Bush was lying when he said he saw the first impact on the Twin Towers, since there had been no live coverage of that attack; the second impact, about 15 minutes later, was covered by cameramen photographing the fire from the first. It would seem likely that when Bush watched the second crash on TV, as he waited to enter the 2nd-grade classroom in Florida where he was planning to read My Pet Goat, he mistakenly thought he was watching the first. Not until about 20 minutes later was he informed that there were two crashes, indicating a terrorist attack rather than an accident

Totally wrong. The second plane hit WTC 2 at 9:03 AM, after Bush had entered the classroom. He was informed only two minutes later, at 9:05 AM.

David Ray Griffin is, in my opinion, not a careful researcher, and he has embraced some of the wilder 9/11 claims, such as the idea that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. But Richard Morrock, on the other hand, seems to be one of the sloppier "debunkers."

Now for the question of whether various theories about 9/11 qualify as "paranoid conspiracy theories."

I would say that the more extreme claims, such as no-planes video fakery, do qualify, since they imply a truly massive conspiracy involving many people in the mass media (plus nearly everyone else who happened to have a camera in or near lower Manhattan on that day).

But there are many other, more reasonable hypotheses that cannot be ruled out a priori as "PCT's."

[Bassman66]

45. My world-view...

Diane,

I believe that the rich and powerful conspire behind closed doors on ways and means to maintain their status.

I believe it.

If anyone says they believe otherwise I will doubt their sanity. There is no way on Earth the rich and powerful would leave things to chance. Sure, they can't cover all the bases, shit happens, but I believe they try to as much as they can. I believe they are good at it too, they can afford the best brains on the planet.

That's my world-view.

Am I paranoid?

I think I'm the most honest thinker I know and at least I'm going to my grave with a clean conscience, they can't touch me there.

Love,

Bassman66

[Diane_nyc]

51. Possible (indeed, likely) real conspiracies by the rich and powerful, vs. "PCT's"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216195">Bassman66 wrote:

I believe that the rich and powerful conspire behind closed doors on ways and means to maintain their status.

I agree with this up to a point.

The problem with "paranoid conspiracy theories" is a tendency to overestimate both the extent of their control and the degree to which members of "the Elite" (whoever "the Elite" is believed to be) are able to cooperate with each other (and with many other people) in micromanaging many different facets of world culture.

An obvious example of a "PCT" is the no-planes video fakery claims, requiring a massive conspiracy of many different people in the mass media, plus almost everyone who happened to have a camera in or near lower Manhattan on that day.

[Bassman66]

54. I'm not talking about the micro level.

You know my feelings on ridiculous CT's like no-planes.

I'm talking about placing people in positions of power and influence.

I believe they conspire to do this.

I believe these people do cooperate with each other to manage facets of culture and bring about major events. They can't manage everything BECAUSE of the micro-level and best their control isn't total, but they try the best they can at the level they can. I believe they have the money to employ the best thinkers on the planet.

I believe their ultimate goal is a one world government, something which David Rockefeller pleaded guilty to. He rather gave the game away.

Actually I don't just believe that, I know that.

[Diane_nyc]

58. The macro level

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216217">Bassman66 wrote:

'm talking about placing people in positions of power and influence.

Certainly, the wealthy can outspend everyone else on campaign contributions, lobbying, etc. No argument there.

I believe they conspire to do this.

Groups of wealthy people may so conspire, but not all wealthy people as a single, consistently united group. They do have their disagreements amongst themselves, like any other category of people.

I believe these people do cooperate with each other to manage facets of culture and bring about major events.

Some facets of culture and some major events, yes. But history as a whole should not be seen as a series of actions by a single, united group of puppetmasters. Many events are the result of quarrels and/or compromises between different factions, for example. Furthermore, grassroots political activists are far from completely powerless.

They can't manage everything BECAUSE of the micro-level and best their control isn't total, but they try the best they can at the level they can. I believe they have the money to employ the best thinkers on the planet.

True, with the caveat that they aren't all united about everything, even on the macro level.

I believe their ultimate goal is a one world government, something which David Rockefeller pleaded guilty to.

That's a goal of some rich folks. By no means all.

[Diane_nyc]

63. P.S.: Correction: The author's name is Robert Todd Carroll, not just Robert Todd. nt

[LARED]

52. My two cents

Conspiracism describes those that hold to a conspiratorial world view. They hold to a system of belief that most institutions of the world are governed by men and women that conspire together to their own ends. This system of beliefs tend to be rather dogmatic because facts and science are typically not factors that are viewed as critical. It's not that facts are ignored, they are rationalized to fit into the doctrines of conspiracism. These souls tend to believe all historically important world events are the product of a conspiracy. It's basically a RELIGION.

Conspiracy theories or theorists are those that know conspiracies exist, but actually try to critically understand the cultural, historical, scientific context, etc in order to understand the event. They can change their views based on the evidence. To them it's an intellectual pursuit.

Of course in the real world it's not that simple

[Diane_nyc]

53. That would be a logical distinction, based on the literal meanings of the terms ....

... But, as you say, "Of course in the real world it's not that simple."

[Bassman66]

56. Conspiracism

What do you call a Conspiracismist (?) whoses system of belief is based on the words of David Rockefeller?

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Anyway, do you have the minutes to the last Bilderberg meeting, someone must have them.

[Diane_nyc]

57. David Rockefeller isn't God

The Rockefellers are powerful, but not all-powerful. Not even all rich folks agree with them about everything or even necessarily about most things. Therefore, it isn't reasonable to believe, for example, that all (or even most) of the major events of the 20th century were little or nothing more than a series of actions by the Rockefeller family and its allies.

[LARED]

59. Do you believe those that advocate and work towards

a "one world" system, are engaging in illegal activity and are possibly evil in nature, or are working collaboratively to common goals and view themselves as inherently good?


or something else?

[defendandprotect]

62. Scooter Libby was found to be involved in a "conspiracy" . . .

was he not?

and our DOJ, of course, bases charges on conspiracy ---

In fact, in writings on the Constitution and IMPEACHMENT . . . .

there are even provisions of impeaching -- and/or SUSPENDING -- the VP and the President . . .

who "conspire" together to corrupt!

[Diane_nyc]

66. Relevant posts in two other recent threads

In the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216495">So, you believe in Conspiracy Theories, do you?..., see the sub-thread beginning with the post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216532">"Conspiracy theory" - a cheap rhetorical dismissal, with dangerously anti-democratic implications, including the post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216729">"Conspiracy theory" and CIA torture of detainees, where I mention an instance of the "conspiracy theory" meme being used to discredit true allegations of U.K. government complicity with CIA torture.

The O.P. of the above thread also references (without linking to it) another thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216445&mesg_id=216445">Guardian UK: Who knows what happened on 9/11?, featuring http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11">this guardian.co.uk Comment Is Free article containing another interesting critique of the "conspiracy theory" meme.