Teachable Moment? What Separates A Bad CT (Birthers) From A Healthy CT (JFK & Truthers)

[stopbush]

CTs have been thrust into the news with today's despicable murder at the Holocaust museum by a RW nutjob who was absolutely positive that there are conspiracies that are alive in this world and those conspiracies are ruining lives and hurting white people - like the Holocaust never happened, Jews run the world and Obama wasn't born in the USA.

That's the RW side of nutjobdom.

But on the other hand, we on the left have our favorite CTs, as mentioned in the title line. Yet, these Dem CTs are regarded as "healthy" and acceptable CTs, at least in that they are both tolerated and encouraged at DU (I won't even get into some of the fav evils that bushco was supposedly about to hatch but never got around to, like concentration camps and martial law).

So, what's the difference?

Is it simply that our "healthy" CTs don't lead to violence and murder? Is it that there's more proof for our treasured CTS while there's no proof for the crazy RW kind (not likely. In fact, both sides rely on hysteria and paranoia as a substitute for fact to drive their beliefs.)? Is it that we don't really feel that passionately about our CTs, treating them more like parlor games and exercises in creative thinking, rather than as actionable truths (don't know about that one). How about that guy who killed Dr Tiller? He was a religious nut whose belief in an imaginary god led him to commit murder. Not necessarily a CT, but a view on life that has grown out of a belief in the fantastic (god).

This isn't meant as flamebait. It's meant to start a general conversation on the dangers of allowing fantastic, baseless ideas to morph into a belief that is perceived as a reality...and worse, is acted upon as if it was a reality.

Perhaps these horrible killings represent a teachable moment for this country.

OK, asbestos suit on. Flame away.

[Eric J in MN]

1. JFK & 9/11 Conspiracy Theories involve trying to understand a tragedy.

Denying the Holocaust is denying a tragedy took place.

I've never seen a DUer claim that JFK is alive and the Twin Towers are standing.

[stopbush]

2. That's a good answer. Care to comment further?

BTW - I've not seen a DUer aver that JFK was still alive, but others have.

[Occam Bandage]

5. All CTs are about the avoidance of a difficult truth. People don't like thinking that

the world is a random and chaotic place where a single, unexceptional person can throw the world off its axis. People don't like thinking that their enemies have value, or that their enemies' victories are legitimate (whether we're talking about birthers or the 2004 Ohio CTs). People don't like thinking that their allies or their ideologies can cause evil. I don't think that any one of these is particularly noble or particularly evil; I can think of harmless and dangerous examples for each.

[stopbush]

11. In one sense, a belief in the JFK & 911 CTs is harmless in that nobody

who believes in them is out committing murder because their CT-of-choice has encouraged or inspired them to do so.

On the other hand, treating myth as fact can be just as deadly if not deadlier. All CTs seem to poison one's view of the world. if the JFK CTs weren't around, I doubt that the 9/11 CTs would have such a hold on certain people. How many 911 CT posts aver "our government has always lied to us" and/or "this goes back to when they killed JFK?" Again, no evidence to support the belief but a passionate belief in the CT none the less, and that belief seems to lead to an unhealthy mistrust of everything our government does (as opposed to a skeptical, healthy questioning of what our government does).

[Eric J in MN]

12. The murder of JFK, and the 9/11 attacks, each involved more than one person....

...committing the crime.

[stopbush]

15. That's a belief that is not supported by the evidence in the JFK case

to a certainty, and that is not supported in the 911 case as there's currently no credible evidence that has been produced to counter the FEMA report on the "How" of the collapse.

I agree that bushco was negligent in taking terror threats seriously, and that they might have been able to stop 911, but that's a far cry from bushco planning and executing the thing.

[JDPriestly]

20. I was 20 when Kennedy was assassinated. After his death,

there was a series of assassinations of liberal leaders followed by a virtual take-over by the right wing extremists.

I do not believe the official explanation for Kennedy's assassination. When I remember that day, and when I step back and look at that event in the context of other events that make up the history of that period, including the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers and others, I believe it even less. And then when I look at the details of the handling of the investigation and aftermath of Kennedy's assassination as well as facts we know about the days and events preceding it, no, I have to reject the official explanation.

Random events occur, but when there is such a strong, clear pattern, a series of assassinations -- and only against liberal leaders, I cannot help but believe there is something more significant going on. If I see a dead bird in my small yard, I think it's a dead bird, but when I see four or five dead birds within a relatively short period of time, I think there must be a cat or some other predator in my garden. I look for an explanation. There have just been too many deaths of liberals. And the violent attacks in the last weeks suggest a pattern that again is not just random or coincidental.

I do not mean to say that these recent attacks are the result of some conspiracy. They appear to be more the kinds of close-up shootings that are done by lone gunmen. But the shooting of people from the distance from strategic locations like the building in Dallas or the building across from the motel in the case of Martin Luther King take planning and quite likely are the result of conspiracies involving more people than the gunman. Hard to say what happened with Sirhan Sirhan.

Think of the shooting of the Archduke at Sarajevo - a conspiracy. Then there was the shooting of Abraham Lincoln -- It is disputed whether the murderer had accomplices or was merely helped after he committed the crime. The assassination of Elizabeth of Hungary is another killing that may or may not have been a conspiracy.

The assassination of Cesar is a classic case of a conspiracy that ended in assassination. History is full of these cases. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that anyone would bother to conspire to kill most of us on DU. We just aren't important enough. Don't criticize conspiracy theories. Sometimes history proves them to be true.

[stopbush]

51. I agree that there are conspiracies, and conspiracies to assassinate presidents

and world leaders.

Anwar Sadat was killed as a result of a conspiracy. So was Lincoln.

But the evidence in the JFK case proves conclusively that Oswald was the lone shooter. Was there a conspiracy beyond Oswald? Even the WCR allowed for that, stating at the time that though they had investigated every conspiracy lead presented to them, they could find no evidence of a conspiracy. Yet, they admitted that it was possible that provable evidence simply hadn't been presented to them.

The JFK CTs that I've read all fail dreadfully, either by being too far fetched or absolutely nuts. One would think that after 45 years one of the thousands of people who would have had to have been involved in such a conspiracy would have talked, but that hasn't happened. Sure, a few self-serving people with a book to sell have spun some wild and detailed stories, but the stories never check out.

Based on Oswald's background and the evidence tying him to the crime, I would say that he didn' need a conspiracy behind him to commit the crime, and if there were conspirators, one wonders why they would have ever picked a nutjob like Oswald to do the thing and why they wouldn't have provided escape assistance to him after the event, rather than allowing him to walk around Dallas with all of $13 in his pocket and kill Officer Tippet.

[Recursion]

31. The House Committee on Assassinations disagrees

Their final report said Oswald (and Ray) did not act alone, but that investigations were at that point impossible.

[stopbush]

48. In the main, the HSCA affirmed the findings of the WCR and was ready to

totally support them when at the 11th hour a team of scientists presented "evidence" from the Dictabelt recording that indicated a 4th shot had been fired, ergo, a conspiracy as Oswald only fired three shots.

However, this evidence was later convincingly refuted by scientific investigations that proved that the impulse identified as a "4th shot" actually happened one minute after JFK's limo had left the scene (further tests by a UK firm tried to cast doubt upon these findings).

So, setting aside that evidence, the doctors who advanced the Dictabelt evidence at the time averred that motorcycle officer H.B "Mac" McClain's bike would have had to have been in a sweet spot at the corner of Houston and Elm to be in a position to record the 4th shot. McClain vigorously denied that he was in that sweet spot when the shot was supposedly recorded, stating that he was actually 200 - 250 feet behind that position. The HSCA chose to ignore his eyewitness testimony, even though it was supposedly his open mike that recorded the shot.

Later evidence has proven beyond any doubt that McClain was correct, and that he was not in the sweet spot to record the shot. Scientists have now synchronized various video tape footage shot by many people in Dealey Plaza that day, forming a continuous composite video of the event. That video shows conclusively that McClain had just made the turn from Main St onto Elm when the supposed 4th shot was recorded on the Dictabelt, ie: exactly where McClain testified his was when he appeared before the HSCA, ie: 200 feet away from the sweet spot.

The James Earl Ray case is an entirely different matter.

[MinM]

55. Senator Richard Schweiker "the JFK assassination investigation was snuffed out before it even began"

Warren Commision Members expressed Doubt -- Ford changed final report
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/105

Friday, 1 March, 2002, 09:50 GMT
Revelations and gaps on Nixon tapes

In the same conversation, Nixon gave new fodder for conspiracy theorists who question whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.

Referring to the report by the Warren Commission, "it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated," Nixon said. He did not elaborate why he questioned the report.

The tapes also record a conversation between President Nixon and former Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in the car with President Kennedy when he was killed.

It contains graphic details of the shooting.

"I was lying... down on (wife) Nellie's lap like this to shield her head on top of me and I had my eyes open and I heard that bullet hit his head ... I knew he was dead," Mr Connally said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1848157.stm

[stopbush]

56. You realize that you're misquoting Nixon, don't you.

The "hoax" Nixon was referring to was the belief that the John Birch Society was behind JFK's assassination.

The facts may be read here: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/28/ip.00.html

I suggest you take a look.

[MrMickeysMom]

64. You mean the facts that read...

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

???

[MrMickeysMom]

66. I was waiting for someone to bring up that "minor detail"...

... which we somehow cannot re-investigate.

Investigation, of course, would be based on an ever-dwindling group of people, but certainly a paper trail.

[MrMickeysMom]

62. Are you claiming there is no evidence that the JFK

was a conspired act, including more than Oswald?

[EOTE]

73. It's supported by a hell of a lot more facts than the Warren Commission Report is.

Regardless of your view on the Kennedy assassination, the Warren Report is a complete whitewash filled with absurdities and flat our lies.

[stopbush]

82. What absurdity would that be? Please explain.

[EOTE]

105. How about claiming that an exit wound is in fact an entrance wound?

And how employees at Bethesda Naval Hospital were sworn to silence. And why wouldn't there be something a bit odd about the burning beyond recognition of the original autopsy report? And why wasn't the chain of custody followed with regards to his autopsy report? This is just a small sampling of absurdities pertaining to the investigation and assassination itself.

[stopbush]

112. I don't know where you're getting your info, but it isn't good info.

If you could cite sources for your claims, that would help as I could look the claims up in my JFK CT books at home. I assume that's where you're getting your ideas because none of those claims appear in the autopsy report, the WCR the HSCA or the Ramsey Panel Report. In fact, those 4 "official" reports dispute all of your claims.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[EOTE]

118. I find it rather odd that you'd request me to include cites for my claims

when you've never done anything of the sort and go by the viewpoint that if you're saying it, it must be true. With regard to your pictures, I'm quite aware that Kennedy wasn't sitting directly behind Connally, but that's beside the point. I'm not talking about ballistics evidence I'm talking about the evidence that was discovered at the time of the autopsy and subsequently covered up in many ways. Eye witnesses unanimously recall seeing the brain matter exit the back of JFK's head, not from the front. Also, the doctor who initially performed the tracheotomy on JFK's body reported the wound on the front of his neck to be an entrance wound multiple times. The rest of the medical staff present described the wound as an entrance wound as well. It wasn't until the Warren Commission already had reached its conclusion and after the Dr. had been visited by secret service agents that he recanted what he had said and suggested that it must have been an entrance wound. Many of the physicians and doctors who had
treated Kennedy also said that the fatal shot produced a large wound at the back of his head and that the skull fragments "exploded outwards". Also, why was the chain of evidence broken? Why was the autopsy not performed in Texas? Why were several witnesses whose description of the coffin that was wheeled into the morgue varied an extreme amount from the ornate bronze coffin that was put onto Air Force One? This is just a small group of facts and arisen questions which undoubtedly lead me to believe in a cover up.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Strong_evidence.html
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter11:thesingle-bullettheory

[stopbush]

122. This is sadly a typical CT conflation of events to create a new reality.

First off, there was no unanimity among witnesses in Dealey Plaza as to how JFK's brain matter exited his head. Abe Zapruder said the shot seemed to take the front of his head off. There were many witnesses that saw the forward exit of the material. No credible person on either side of this issue would ever say that there was a unanimous belief about anything. Some eyewitnesses swore that they saw JFK stand up in the limo when the shots rang out.

Further, it doesn't matter one iota what the ER doctors and staff thought they saw when they were attempting to save JFK. They didn't do an autopsy at Parkland. If the opinions of doctors, ambulance drivers and witnesses on the street were always 100% accurate there would be no need for investigations or autopsies. Autopsies are done to establish the facts in the case, and those facts often fly in the face of mere opinions. That's why an opinion unsupprted by evidence is called hearsay.

Just how credible are the opinions of the Parkland doctors who thought JFK's neck wound was an entrance wound, when these same doctors didn't bother turning his body over at any time to see the entrance wound in his back? BTW - that includes the fact that they didn't see the bullet entrance in the back of his head. To assume that a doctor's opinion - especially one seen in the heat and stress of a life-saving effort - overrides the clear forensic evidence that a team of trained pathologists gathers over the course of a 5-hour autopsy (which included a full-body x-ray of JFK) is simple-minded.

BTW - there was nothing unanimous in what the Parkland doctors thought of the neck wound. Some speculated that it was an exit wound created by a bone fragment from the shot that hit JFK in the head. They thought that there was only one bullet that hit JFK because they didn't bother looking at his back when they were trying to save his life. So to aver that every medical person at Parkland said it was an entry wound is false on its face. And why don't you mention this fact? It wouldn't be because it destroys your idea that every single doctor at Parkland said the same thing, would it?

BIG BTW - if the bullet wound to JFK's throat was an entry wound as you aver, then just where did the bullet exit to? There was no bullet wound on the back or left side of his throat or skull, so where did it go? And by similar logic, if the bullet wound in the throat was an exit wound (which it was) and it didn't go on to strike Connally, what happened to it? If Connally wasn't positioned to be struck by that bullet, then the laws of physic say it should have continued forward, striking the driver or his seat or the floor of the limo. Perhaps that bullet vanished into thin air? Now, THERE'S a magic bullet!

And, if any shot that came from the grassy knoll hit JFK or Connally, how did these bullets not strike Jackie on their way out the bodies of the men? No bullets were found in JFK's body and only bullet fragments were found in Connally, so the laws of physics say the bullets had to continue on their way, especially full-metal jacketed bullets that are designed to not break up in a victim's body. Do you ever stop to think about things like this?

The evidence that "was discovered at the time of the autopsy" - by which I assume you mean VIA the autopsy - is what appears in the autopsy report and in all of the subsequent investigations. The trail of evidence was sound before, during and after the autopsy and was testified as being so by the attending pathologists when they were interviewed by the Ramsey Panel.

I could rebut every point you raise, but why bother? Your mind is closed. If you had any interest, you would read Bugliosi's book which addresses every single myth that you advance in your post. And believe me, they are myths, including the loony ideas about the coffin and the chain of custody being broken on the evidence.

[Time for change]

125. "It doesn't matter one iota what the ER doctors and staff thought they saw when they were

attempting to save JFK".

Really? Expert eye-witness testimony by 9 physicians who all have similar opinions doesn't matter one iota. You'd have a damn hard time trying to sell that one to a jury. That would only be true if you didn't have the slightest interest in getting to the truth.

[Time for change]

124. Here you go

In this post you'll find some evidence that backs up EOTE's claims:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5449636

[Occam Bandage]

59. #58 would apply to this post as well. nt

[JDPriestly]

17. CTs are attempts to look beyond official explanations for events when

the official explanations don't "fit" with personal experience in life or knowledge of history.

There is a huge difference between asking questions and theorizing about unconventional explanations for events or phenomena and taking a gun and killing someone. Conspiracy theories in and of themselves are ideas, possible explanations that are interesting to explore. We learn a lot from allowing our imaginations to lead us to new ideas, new explanations for things.

Thus far, I have not heard of anyone who questions the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of Kennedy actually harming anyone or even suggesting harming anyone. The same is true for 9/11. I haven't heard about any 9/11 Truthers going berserk and causing trouble. There is a huge difference between theorizing about conspiracies and actually creating or implementing a conspiracy or even a violent act. There is simply no relationship. The OP assumes that there is a relationship. There is none.

Show me a person who believes the official explanation for everything, and I will show you a totally boring person. Long live conspiracy theories. They are fun and a little skepticism is a healthy thing.

[Occam Bandage]

60. I think our posts are just different spin on the same idea. nt

[Occam Bandage]

3. I don't think any sort of irrational thinking is healthy.

Saying, "X and Y in the accepted story do not seem to be supported by fact" is reasonable and healthy. Saying, "so this means that group Z did it and covered it up" is unhealthy.

The reason for the differing treatment between the conspiracies here and at FR is that the conspiracies we accept (and they reject) are conspiracies that mesh with our preexisting beliefs, and the conspiracies they accept (and we reject) are conspiracies that mesh with their preexisting beliefs. Over here, you can say more or less anything you want, no matter how fantastic or how unsupported, so long as Bush or some other Republican is the villain. Over there, you can say more or less anything you want, no matter how fantastic or how unsupported, so long as Obama or Clinton or some other Democrat is the villain. And in both cases, there will be a sizable number of people who cheer you on, while the others simply ignore you as a harmless eccentric. Of course, everyone always sees the harmless eccentrics on the other side as dangerous lunatics...

I don't think there's anything inherently different about our CTs and theirs. The reason their nutters shoot up places and ours don't is that they have an entire media industry dedicated to creating a paranoiac, frightening, angry alternate reality, and we do not. We have no Hannity, we have no Beck, we have no O'Reilly, and we have no Limbaugh.

[stopbush]

4. I like your answer too.

Great point about the Hannity/Beck/Billo paranoia mill.

[anigbrowl]

6. Absolutely.

[RC]

19. You missed one.

Those on the Left are more reality grounded. That has a bearing on Conspiracy Theories being applied to conventional wisdom.

[JDPriestly]

22. Compare Thom Hartmann to Limbaugh. Hartmann is so reasonable

and so courteous to people whether he agrees with the or not. He is my favorite talk show host. Ron Reagan is another extremely reasonable person. And Rachel Maddow, Olbermann and Ed Schultz are dramatic but always moderate in their language and presentation. They rely on evidence and not just opinion. When they express their opinions, they do so in a way that makes it very clear that they are expressing an opinion not a fact.

[SidDithers]

28. +1...

Very good post.

Sid

[konnichi wa]

32. Very astute

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

50. Let's try not to forget: The "official" story of 9/11 *IS* a Conspiracy Theory.

Cheney/Bush even EXTENDED it to include Saddam.

[Occam Bandage]

58. That's true. The nomenclature, "conspiracy theory," isn't very good.

Suppose you overhear a conversation strongly suggesting that two of your neighbors are planning a murder. Suppose the murder occurs, and evidence arises that both are involved. Theorizing conspiracy is more than reasonable. I think the term was popularized after the JFK assassination, to denote those who theorized a conspiracy as compared to those who believed in a lone gunman.

On the other hand, "highly speculative conspiracy theory" takes too long to write, and people usually are able to infer that from the phrase "conspiracy theory."

[TahitiNut]

61. Well, Conspiracy Theorists merely need to do some waterboarding to get legitimacy.

:dunce: ... and buy some media outlets.

[MrMickeysMom]

68. thumbs up ...

Perhaps we get lost in the labels when we should be doing otherwise.

:-)

[JuliantheApostate]

92. Nail, meet Head. eom

[JI7]

7. they both suck and can be dangerous although the wingnuts tend to be more openly violent

while the left wing ones can be dangerous by telling people they shouldn't get certain medical care , vaccines etc.

[stopbush]

8. I'm with you on the vaccine mythology.

I saw it called a "Manufactroversy" over at Skeptic this week.

[leftstreet]

9. "This isn't meant as flamebait."

:rofl:

[stopbush]

13. Yes, I know that it's near impossible to have a discussion about CTs on DU

and not have it devolve into a flame war, but one can try.

Perhaps - in the marketplace of ideas - good, reasoned ideas will trump the self-entertaining posting of emoticons as a substitute for offering a sound argument.

Or maybe, not...

[MrMickeysMom]

70. And we are not IBTL

heh?

Amazing it hasn't been moved yet, at least, which says something good for the mods. We should have some kind of discussion, but this one's hard to tap down!

[Posteritatis]

10. Your post's title suggests political affiliation is what seperates a bad CT from a healthy one (nt)

[stopbush]

14. That's true to some extent, but our "healthy" JFK CT belief is shared by most Rs as well.

At least if polls are to be believed (75% of Americans believe the JFK CTs)

[billyoc]

16. Nothing.

[baldguy]

18. Call me when an Oliver Stone fan starts killing people.

[billyoc]

24. von Brunn was a Truther, you know that, right?

[baldguy]

26. You're blind to the distinctions between people who have legitimate questions

of TPTB in our govt when it refuses to be open & honest, and those who believe we live on a stage set of the Truman Show and everyone who tries to dissuade them of the idea is an enemy whose life is forfeit. They are not on the same continuum - one strives to make the system work as its supposed to, showing the public the information they need to make informed decisions. The other totally casts the system aside.

The thing is, if you DON'T force TPTB to answer your questions to your satisfaction - if each of us doesn't - as soon we allow the people who work for us to say "Don't look there, you can't see that, that's none of your business, we're not going to tell you about that" as they have with the JFK murder & 9/11, it gives crazies like von Brunn more ammunition to support their insanity.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[baldguy]

34. Oh right, Cindy Sheehan = Adolf Hitler.

And Barack Obama = George Bush

All the same, all the same.

:eyes:

[MrMickeysMom]

71. Whilst we're being civil to each other n' at...

dumbass?

Here's a soothing cookie... It's a conversation.

[MrMickeysMom]

65. Yeah? What "truth" was he all about?

:popcorn:

[JackRiddler]

99. Why would this be relevant?

a. It's probably happened. Harry Potter fans have killed people. Bambi fans have killed people.

b. Does Stone's JFK (I'm presuming you are referencing this) call on anyone, even in the most remote or indirect fashion, to kill people, or to commit acts of violence? Nope. So even if a fan kills people, and even if he says he did it because of Oliver Stone, you couldn't blame Oliver Stone. (You could blame him for Natural Born Killers, however.)

c. Would this fan's rampage change or even reflect upon the truth or untruth of any of the movie's claims, at all? Well, maybe if he was the Comedian!

[baldguy]

109. Um...that's my point.

billyoc would have you believe that people who think Oswald was a CIA operative or that the Bushies haven't revealed everything they knew leading up to the 9/11 attacks are the same people who believe the Jews control all the banks & track all our money. This allows him to slander anyone who is a conspiracy theorist - even if they're right.

[JackRiddler]

110. Um... sure.

And my point is, even if a Stone fan committed murder, even then billyoc has no case to make. (Not unless Stone calls for or encourages murder in his work, which he certainly does not.)

Did you hear? Yesterday a MENSA member walked into the US Holocaust Museum and opened fire on random people, killing a poor security guard.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Some CTs are bad, ergo covert ops do not exist...

Q.E.D.

[NoPasaran]

23. No difference at all

They're all fucking crackpots

[baldguy]

80. See #43

[surrealAmerican]

25. Any "theory" that is not supported by evidence is a bad theory.

If a conspiracy theory does not seek evidence, or ignores contrary evidence, you may as well disregard it.
The problem arises when there is an absence of evidence because of an intentional cover-up.

[baldguy]

27. And when the official story isn't supported by the evidence...?

[surrealAmerican]

30. Then it's just that: a "story".

[baldguy]

37. And when people rightly question that story

They are attacked & dismissed as "conspiracy theorists".

[surrealAmerican]

39. No. That happens when they formulate an alternative ...

... version that lacks supporting evidence.

[baldguy]

43. One of the major reasons the Bush Regime gave for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam had WMDs.

When people claimed Iraq had no WMDs - like Scott Ritter, Ron Suskind, Media Matters, etc. and that the Bush Regime was covering up that fact - they were attacked by the Bushies, the neocons and the RW media for being nothing but crazy conspiracy theorists. To this day neocons & the RW media claim Iraq did have WMDs.

This was a conspiracy at the highest levels of the US govt. All the evidence promoted by the govt supported the conspiracy. The conspiracy theorists did not accept the supporting evidence presented by the US govt, and sought out evidence from their own sources which they trusted & accepted.

And those crazy conspiracy theorists were proven to be right, weren't they?

[JackRiddler]

95. This example demonstrates the uselessness of the terminology.

In that episode, objectively, the only "conspiracy theorists" were the Bush regime members, who posited a non-existent conspiracy between Saddam and "Al-Qaeda." This particular conspiracy theory contributed to the destruction of the Iraqi nation and the deaths of about a million people.

Thus the responsible Bush regime members were 1) a conspiracy (because they conspired to lie and manufacture evidence), and they were also 2) conspiracy theorists (because they wittingly invented a fictional conspiracy). See?

But in the bizarro-world terminology that dominate and degrades American discourse, people who correctly pointed out that the government was lying... were attacked as the "conspiracy theorists." Because this term is used about as promiscuously and with the same intent and similar effect as "commie" in the 1950s or "liberal" in the 1980s.

The CT term is used consistently only with regard to allegations of crimes by the government, corporations, or establishment institutions.

You can talk about mean and nasty plans of the Commies (back in the day) or nowadays the Islamists, or Iran or North Korea. Even if these plans don't even exist, you're not a "conspiracy theorist."

But if you attribute mean and nasty plans to your own government, or to corporations, or the glorious banks without whom we cannot even breathe - watch out! You're a "CT" and now fair game for any association that your accuser wishes to make, no matter how irrelevant.

[baldguy]

102. A conspiracy theorist is someone who has run afoul of TPTB

Whether they be political, economic, social or religious. It is not used exclusively to describe someone with a non-official view of just the govt.

Members of the Bush Regime aren't conspiracy theorists - they are CONSPIRATORS. They were not under the mis-impression that Iraq had WMDs - THAT'S THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE TRYING TO CREATE. They knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda BUT THAT'S THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE TRYING TO CREATE. However the people who claimed Iraq had no WMDs & alleged that the Bush Regime committed crimes to cover it up were considered to be conspiracy theorists by Bush loyalists, the mainstream corporate media and the neocon elite - but they were RIGHT.

The terminology is only useless when you ignore the accepted definitions.

[konnichi wa]

33. Well the few who think the WTC was blown down by explosives are harmless, mostly.

They're nuts but not dangerous as a rule.

[billyoc]

35. Except for the guy who shot up the museum yesterday.

[konnichi wa]

36. Wot?

No idea what you mean
:shrug:

[baldguy]

38. He was an Alex Jones-type.

billyoc - like the RW press - is concentrating on von Brunns hatred of Bush & the neocons (and the suspicion of the official story about 9/11 that goes with it), and ignores the fact that he really hated anyone who happened to be in power at any particular time.

[konnichi wa]

41. Oh, okay...I just assumed he was a regular garden variety screwball.

...

[billyoc]

42. I am.

:hi:

[konnichi wa]

46. Not YOU, silly boy!

:D
:hi:

[billyoc]

47. Oh, oh!

:rofl:

[billyoc]

40. von Brunn was a 9/11 Truther.

[MinM]

44. Glenn Beck says 9/11 truthers are destoying America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUTATYaIZYI

[MrMickeysMom]

90. Hey MinM...

... you like the way Beck says quickly before going into his diatribe, "...don't know whether there's any truth to it or not...")

What a fucking distraction! While FUX News covers their association of hate crimes, they shift it over to the 9/11 truth movement.

What a steaming bowl of colon blow THAT is!

[MrMickeysMom]

69. And Adolf Hitler's religion was...

Christianity, I believe he was a Catholic...

So what the fuck does THIS say about other catholics??? :eyes:

[billyoc]

76. It doesn't say anything about other Catholics. Hitler was obsessed with Zionist conspiracies.

Just like 9/11 truthers.

[MrMickeysMom]

78. This is not true!

Didn't you learn that correlation is not equivalent to causation?

You think anyone seeking truth about what really happened (JFK, 9/11, or otherwise) is obsessed with Zionist conspiracies?

:crazy: Hello!

on edit: spell

[baldguy]

79. Hitler drove a green car, therefore everyone who drives a green car is the same as Hitler.

[billyoc]

83. JFK? No. 911? Absolutely.

[MrMickeysMom]

85. You live in a world of absolutes...

You must be privy to something, but I'm thinking it's more along the lines of subjectivity.

Reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw in the 80's ... "God said it, I believe it, That settles it!"

I'd rather seek, not hide behind a perceived "truth"

[billyoc]

86. Ridiculing Truthers for blaming 9/11 on Israel doesn't mean I live in a world of absolutes.

Whatever the hell that means.

[MrMickeysMom]

87. Um.. DO you even know what you mean to say?

When did this become the correlation of Truthers blaming 9/11 on Israel? :freak:

Take a powder, Billy. It's gonna be okay...

[billyoc]

88. I defy you to find a Truther screed that doesn't involve Israel.

Take your time.

[MrMickeysMom]

89. Your posts do a fine job of that by inviting comment... record time

Many of those investigating 9/11 who have contributed (interview content, books, book reviews) don't seem to have the association.

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Are you on a three day or coming off an all-night bender or something? Geeeezzzusss...

[billyoc]

93. I don't see anything about 9/11 on that page, did you send the wrong link?

No hurry.

[MrMickeysMom]

97. Since you didn't visit the same site's 2008 archives...

Here ya go, Billy..

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html

See Show No. 370, 372 (part 2), 380 and 381 (part 2).

Have a cup of herbal tea... :-)

[billyoc]

100. From your link(did you read it?):

# Is Israel the real problem?
# The NeoCons, Oil, Israel and the WTC
# Israeli pipelines to carry Iraqi oil?
# The long list of US/Israeli dual citizens in power
# Several Israeli's watched 9/11 from a nearby rooftop
# A massive Civil Defense drill from Apr 6th to the 10th in Israel


Trust me, I've heard every screwball 9/11 conspiracy know to humankind, because I'm down here building the new World Trade Center right now. :)

You are NEVER going to find a 9/11 Truther theory that isn't a hateful, anti-semitic screed.

Because they don't exist.

[MrMickeysMom]

101. I not only read it, I LISTENED TO THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW

All that hateful, anti-semitic screed exists, alright... IN YOUR MIND!

But why bother to research after demanding references. You don't do your part, Billy. You spin out of control, like some mad person. Calm down.

There is sustainability when considering the number of people who have taken interest and have become part of this type of documentation. But how could YOU know? You didn't take time to research it. I can't help you there.

Then.... I'm supposed to think that it matters WHERE you are right now where you're writing this? ... because the notes taken from the interview ask the question about EVERYONE'S role, including Israel. :wtf:

Why, then bother to ask anyone your questions, interview them extensively. Because if some bullet points include anything that has the name Israel, it's ANTI-SEMITIC.

Get real. Do your own homework and spinning out of control.

[billyoc]

106. You do a lot of yelling and wtf-ing for someone telling me to calm down so often.

Your link is anti-semitic hate speech, and it's tailor made for the likes of the Museum Shooter.

THAT is why he's a Truther.

[MrMickeysMom]

113. Yes, I sure do say, "WTF"

... I think anyone would with having to listen to reason when you clearly have no reason to call this link "anti-semitic", or hate speech, or tailor made for the likes of the Museum Shooter.

Is this possibly because you can't HANDLE the pursuit of truth, Billy? I mean... you ain't read it. You're just spinning around and around and around and haven't listened to these interviews on BOR.

Now, dear... why don't you go have yourself a nice cup of TRUTH SEEKING... cause THAT'S all we're ever going to be able to do until we all push up those little daisies.

Love and Kisses,

MMM

[MrMickeysMom]

72. few?

(sigh) I just know there is no supportive evidence of this...

[Subdivisions]

77. Please provide a source for (I'm still waiting...)

"the few who think the WTC was blown down by explosives". Thanks.

[konnichi wa]

115. You mean you haven't heard the wacko theories?

Wow.
There are a bunch in the Sept 11 forum...like I said nuts but probably not dangerous.

[snooper2]

45. Motherfucking NARWHAL knows the truth

too bad they can't talk...



How soon till this thread gets moved- :rofl:

[Recursion]

49. Far and away the most harmful and common 9/11 conspiracy theory is that Iraq was involved

That one has cost over a million lives already.

[LeftishBrit]

96. You're absolutely right.

And that is actually one of the things that led to my becoming increasingly suspicious of the potential dangers of all unproven conspiracy theories, if permitted to become widely influential and accepted.

[BeFree]

52. OK

"This isn't meant as flamebait. It's meant to start a general conversation on the dangers of allowing fantastic, baseless ideas to morph into a belief that is perceived as a reality...and worse, is acted upon as if it was a reality."

We live with that and people have died because of the following of the fantastic, baseless idea that Afghanistan, in total, had to pay dearly for the actions of a few supposed part-time inhabitants of that country.

Yet, it continues and no one can explain why. It just continues. But do you express disagreement with that? No. But you attack those who are trying to get to the bottom of that idea that a whole country must pay for the supposed actions of those few. And that without a fair hearing, just Bushco's word.

[TheBigotBasher]

53. Given the connection to the 9/11 conspiracies

and the Birfers is Phillip Berg, I would say not very much.

Perhaps liike Alex Jones, Mr Berg needs the conspiracies to keep his profile.

[ecstatic]

54. What I wonder is why people put so much faith in govt explanations

For example, what happened to Air France's doomed flt 447? A Conspiracy theorist seems to be anyone who questions authority.

[stopbush]

57. It's normal to question any government explanation that is based on

whole cloth or outright lies.

However, there's nothing wrong, abnormal or unAmerican about believing government explanations that are based on hard evidence, as is the WCR in the JFK case.

[MrMickeysMom]

74. That's where I believe you've wandered off the reservation...

Again.... House select committee, never having been resurrected, recognized Oswald did not act alone.

There is no hard evidence in the JFK assassination.

Not sure about what cloth you're using, but you've not described the "evidence" well, at least in one of the 2 things discussed here.

[undeterred]

63. Ok, I thought CT was computerized tomography.

Something to do with birthers.

[MrMickeysMom]

67. bwah

I love it...

[Swede]

91. What does it mean?

:shrug:

[MrMickeysMom]

114. Why, conspiracy theorist, Swede!

... but you can also get a CT scan to help diagnose disease (if you have single payer health care, everyone can, had to get that in...)

[EOTE]

75. You really seem to be very uncomfortable that people believe in CTs.

The establishment really doesn't need any more cheerleaders than it already has. You go on believing that your conspiracy theories are the right ones and everyone else is crazy, but I don't claim to have all the answers, I just use my head rather than tacitly accept everything that's told to me.

[stopbush]

81. I semi-tacitly believed the JFK CTs for a long time and read many of

the pro-JFK CT books along the way. But over time - and at the urging of others - I read the evidence in the case and the books that looked at the JFK shooting from an evidence-based inquiry and found that my opinion about the JFK assassination changed dramatically.

I wonder if you've ever read the WCR or any of the books that support its conclusions. I wonder if "using your head" allows for consideration of evidence that counters "everything that's being told you" by the CT crowd.

With 75% of Americans believing that there was a conspiracy behind JFK's killing, I'd say that the CTists are the ones who "don't need any more cheerleaders," wouldn't you?

[EOTE]

103. I've read plenty of books supporting the WCR.

In addition to the WCR itself. I've also read descriptions of Specter baiting medical examiners to provide affirmation for absolute physical impossibilities. The WCR is a whitewash of epic proportions. And yes, I think if you've actually read it and still think it's legitimate, there's not much going on upstairs.

[stopbush]

104. I disagree with your characterization of the WCR, but I appreciate

your having read the thing and books that support it. Most JFK CTists can't be bothered.

Question: if you don't mind, which of these drawings do you feel accurately reflects the seating positions of JFK and Connally in the limo? A or B?

A:



B:





Thanks in advance for your answer.

[EOTE]

108. I can't tell you at the moment because the site those pics are on is blocked by my work firewall

But I should be able to tell you tonight. Regardless, I've heard and seen plenty of information from people who support the absurd official theory to know that a couple of illustrations is unlikely to change my mind.

[stopbush]

111. Got it. You can check out a more-expansive take on the

questions raised by the drawings I posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=250839&mesg_id=251996

[EOTE]

119. I reply at post #118. NT

[JackRiddler]

84. Actually, the question is: What brings them together?

The answer is obvious: your own use of the label to artificially combine a variety of beliefs under the "CT" banner, falsely associating all who hold any one or more of these beliefs with all others who hold any one or more of these beliefs.

As usual with those who employ the CT label, a CT is whatever you say it is.

The official conspiracy theory of the 9/11 attacks, for example, does not qualify. The conspiracy theory by Cheney's circle aiming to blame the 9/11 attacks on Saddam Hussein also does not qualify, even though it killed about a million people more than von Brunn did. (The neocons don't have to tell us what they think about UFOs or JFK, though I bet some of their answers on the latter would be interesting.)

Bullshit from the government about Iran, Cuba or Venezuela does not qualify as CT, even if proven as bullshit.

By the way, long as everyone from Glenn Beck to you is now playing the game of "Pin von Brunn on Your Favored Bogeyman":

Why do you ignore that von Brunn was a veteran of the US military and a member of MENSA?

Who are you trying to protect?

To paraphrase:

"MENSA members have been thrust into the news with today's despicable murder at the Holocaust museum by a RW nutjob who was absolutely positive that there are people with high IQs that are alive in this world, that this matters profoundly, and that he is one of them."

"Is this a teachable moment for MENSA members?"

Hey, hey, not meaning to provoke here!

"Discuss."

[Echo In Light]

94. I've long given up on the idea that enough people give a fuck one way or the other...

...to make a difference. And this always has and always will allow official lies and cover ups to stand as the generally accepted, consensus "reality;" the preferred version of reality that naturally doesn't cast the Team Captains, and team players in a ghastly, incriminating light. It makes perfect sense that people would seek that comfortable position.

Do I think 9/11 was an inside job. Absolutely.

Do I think the holocaust occurred? Absolutely.

Are there people who will fight and argue endlessly in support of a contrary view re either of those atrocities? Absolutely.

Do I give a fuck about that? Absolutely not.

This country is a text book example of cultural indoctrination, and the manufacture of consent. Everything about it is a sham, a phony, a synthetic, a cheap, illusory substitute. Nothing will ever change that, and for the bulk of the citizenry, they'll simply go on, as they always have, perceiving their govt and their country, and its place in the world, in the exact opposite terms of what it actually is and represents. Little I can do about that. And more precisely, why should I give a fuck otherwise?

[alarimer]

98. No conspiracy theory is healthy.

ALL of them are based on no evidence whatsoever, only the figments of a fevered imagination or, possibly the dangerously unstable.

There is simply no credible evidence to show that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist act. One that was facilitated by our government's incompetence but who were otherwise uninvolved. Conspiracy theories are dangerous because they are fundamentally irrational.

[Kaleko]

116. Congratulations.

You're eligible to win the Good American of the Year Award -

an honor bestowed by the All-American Brainwasher's Association (AABA)!!!!!

An AABA representative will contact you shortly. Probably even on this very thread. Stand by to claim your prize for no questions asked.

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Echo In Light]

121. David Ray Griffin MP3 Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society

http://www.archive.org/details/Dr-David-Ray-Griffin-Debunking-the-911-Debunkers-Vancouver-BC-May16-2007

[endarkenment]

107. The JFK assassination and the WTC attack actually happened.

These were real events. In the case of 9-11 the argument is mostly about the extent of the conspiracy and the oddity of WTC-7. In the case of JFK, there are lots of problems with the official version and those problems open the way for legitimate alternative explanations. There is a difference between conspiracy theories that attempt to expand on the common understanding of real events and conspiracy theories that attempt to negate those events entirely or invent new and unsubstantiated events to fit into an ideological explanation of the world.

'there was no holocaust' is simply delusional thinking given the amount of evidence that there was in fact an eradication program carried out by nazi germany with the intention of making europe 'jew free'. A holocaust non-happening theory is quite different than a lihop theory of 9-11. It is not an expanded explanation of a real event, it is simply a denial of an obvious reality.

'jews run the world' lacks any substantial supporting evidence and has to work around the obvious fact that the planet's ruling elites are predominately white anglo saxon men and have been for around 350 years or so. There isn't even an event here, just a vague idea, there is no substance to this conspiracy theory it is just filling around 'I hate Jews'.

'Obama is not natural born' - again this theory doesn't enhance or expand on a real event that has substantial supporting evidence, in this case Obama's birth in Hawaii and the birth certificate that documents that birth, it isn't an expansion on the fact, for example that JFK was shot in Dallas, but instead a denial of a manifest reality with no substantiating evidence.

'planes did not fly into WTC-1 and WTC-2' would be the equivalent truther conspiracy theory to the holocaust denying birther terrorists world view.

[stopbush]

117. What are the "lots of problems with the official version" of the JFK assassination?

I hear this all the time, yet I don't see problems with the evidence and the conclusions drawn.

It's been my experience that people who say there are "lots of problems" get their beliefs from fake and incomplete "evidence" presented in some CT book. It all starts with the idea of a "magic bullet," the magic being based on a bullet trajectory that is built on a totally inaccurate belief in how JFK & Connally were seated in the limo (see posts above). Once you are shown the actual positions of the men in the limo, you see that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back had nowhere to go but into Connally.

This is a lynchpin in destroying the JFK CTs, because once you establish the veracity of the single bullet (CE399) striking both men - which is what it HAD to do based on physics and where they were seated in the limo - the CTists have no where to go. They can't even postulate shooters on the grassy knoll because there are now not enough wounds left to accommodate their theory.

The proof that the bullet that killed JFK (the head wound) came from behind is established to an absolute certainty by one simple and indisputable fact: the beveling the bullet produced in his skull as it made it's way through the bone. This can be nothing but a wound of entry in the back of his head. In addition, the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK's head moving FORWARD at the point of the bullet striking his head (Z frames 312-313. Frame 312 is the frame before the bullet impact of 313, roughly 1/18th of a second before the bullet struck). Notice how Jackie and the scene around her barely move in that 1/18th of a second between frames, while JFK's head is pushed violently forward as the bullet impacts:



just as it clearly shows his brain material exiting FORWARD from his head (Z frame 313), and notice in the frame below- the back of JFK's head is IN TACT at the point of the bullet impact while the right side of his head is being blown away, creating a huge exit wound on the right side of his head.



Also notice that in the two-frame animation above, Jackie's face is seen clearly in Frame 312 and is then totally covered in 313 as brain material exits JFK's head in front of him.


At this point, the only counter the CTists have is to claim that all of the evidence is doctored, which is them trying to have it both ways as they use that same "tainted" evidence to support their crazy claims. Of course, they present the evidence incompletely or they present a lie (such as the seating positions as presented in the book High Treason and in Oliver Stone's JFK).

If you have other "problems with the evidence" that you can present, I'd like to hear them.

[Octafish]

120. WC purpose was to cover up the truth about the assassination. Cover-up = LIE.

For details:

THE WARREN COMMISSION'S FAILED INVESTIGATION

Michael T. Griffith
2002 @All Rights Reserved
Revised and Expanded on 2/19/2002

In spite of all we now know about the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, a few people still argue the commission did a fine job under the circumstances and that it reached the right conclusion on all essential issues. One commission defender, Ken Rahn, opines that the commission "did a great job" and "got the right answer." The record, however, shows the Warren Commission failed miserably to properly investigate the assassination and that it suppressed important evidence that pointed to conspiracy.

Jim Moore, a lone-gunman theorist and author of the book Conspiracy of One, agrees the commission didn't conduct a genuine investigation:

The Warren Commission, it should be clear, never really conducted an investigation. They began with a conclusion and then worked fairly carefully to ensure that the available facts fit the pre-ordained determination. (Conspiracy of One, Ft. Worth: The Summit Group, 1991, p. 173)

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reinvestigated the Kennedy shooting from 1977-1979. One of the select committee's conclusions was that the Warren Commission failed to adequately investigate the possibility of conspiracy. Said the committee,

The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government. (HSCA Report, p. 256)

The HSCA went further and said the Warren Commission stated its no-conspiracy finding too strongly and that the select committee developed important information that the commission failed to uncover:

The committee also found fault with the manner in which the conclusions of the Warren Commission were stated, although the committee recognized how time and resource limitations might have come into play. There were instances, the committee found, in which the conclusions did not appropriately reflect the efforts undertaken by the Commission and the evidence before it. In the Warren report, the Commission overstated the thoroughness of its investigation and the weight of its evidence in a number of areas, in particular that of the conspiracy investigation. The Commission did not candidly enumerate its limitations due to time pressures, inadequate resources or insufficient information. Instead the language employed in the report left the impression that issues had been dealt with more thoroughly than they actually had. This was due in part, according to attorneys who worked for the Commission, to pressure from Commission members to couch the report in the strongest language possible. As an example, the Commission declared in the beginning paragraph of its conclusions section,

"No limitations have been placed on the Commission's inquiry; it has concluded its own investigation, and all Government agencies have fully discharged their responsibility to cooperate with the Commission in its investigation."

This, in the opinion of the committee, was an inaccurate portrayal of the investigation.

On conspiracy, the Commission stated, "...if there is any ... evidence , it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission." Instead of such definitive language, the Commission should have candidly acknowledged the limitations of its investigation and denoted areas where there were shortcomings.

As the committee's investigation demonstrated, substantive new information has been developed in many areas since the Warren Commission completed its work. Particular areas where the committee determined the performance of the Commission was less than complete include the following:

Oswald's activities and associations during the periods he lived in New Orleans;
The circumstances surrounding the 2 1/2 years Oswald spent in the Soviet Union;
The background, activities, and associations of Jack Ruby, particularly with regard to organized crime;
The conspiratorial and potentially violent climate created by the Cuban issue in the early 1960s, in particular the possible consequences of the CIA-Mafia assassination plots against Castro and their concealment from officials of the Kennedy administration;
The potential significance of specific threats identified by the Secret Service during 1963, and their possible relationship to the ultimate assassination of the President;
The possible effect upon the FBI's investigation from Director Hoover's disciplining agents for their conduct of the Oswald security case;
The full nature and extent of Oswald's visit to Mexico City 2 months prior to the assassination, including not only his contact with the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic offices there, and the CIA's monitoring of his activities there, but also his possible associations and activities outside of those offices;
The violent attitude of powerful organized crime figures toward the President and Attorney General Robert Kennedy, their capacity to commit murder, including assassination, and their possible access to Oswald through his associates or relatives; and
Analysis of all available scientific evidence to determine the number of shots fired at the President. (HSCA Report, pp. 259-261)

The HSCA reached much different conclusions about the JFK assassination than the Warren Commission reached. Among other things, the HSCA concluded Kennedy was probably killed by a conspiracy, that four shots were fired, that there were two gunmen, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that Jack Ruby had extensive Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he got into the basement of the police department to shoot Oswald, and that Ruby's story about why he killed Oswald was false.

Critics of the Warren Commission have identified numerous errors, omissions, and shortcomings in the commission's investigation, many of which were also identified by the HSCA. Here are some of them:

CONTINUED...

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/failed.htm

Chief Justice Earl Warren himself stated he took the assignment of heading the government's official investigation into the assassination because he was told by Lyndon Johnson that if he didn't, the nation could find itself embroiled in nuclear war with the Soviets. Why that was is that the people behind the assassination tried all they could to make it look like Kennedy was killed by a Cuban-Soviet conspiracy.

The Warren Commission started on a premise that Oswald was guilty and that was that. In the process of creating their story, they covered up the truth with a mish-mash of innuendo, misinformation, disinformation, ommissions and lies. Lies and the rest of that are not good for a democracy. We the People can handle the truth. Understanding that is part of being a Democrat, IMFO.

[LeftishBrit]

123. Interesting post...

I think that there are differences between plausible and less plausible CTs, and also between a hypothesis that is rejected when the evidence does not support, and one which is held firmly in spite of the evidence.

There are indeed 'dangers of allowing fantastic, baseless ideas to morph into a belief that is perceived as a reality'.

I think that most of these CTs are neither right nor left in themselves. There are 'Truthers'; people who are suspicious of vaccines and other forms of modern medicine; and people who believe that Princess Diana was murdered, both on the right and left wing of politics, for example. There are differences in *how* these are expressed: for example, the left-wing anti-vaccinator is more likely to express suspicion of 'Big Pharma' and the right-wing vaccinator to express suspicion of government-run or mandated public health programmes. The left-wing 'MIHOP'-er is more likely to justify their beliefs in terms of the wickedness and untrustworthiness of the Bush government in particular and the right-wing 'MIHOP'er to do so in terms of the wickedness and untrustworthiness of all governments. It is among right-wing MIHOP-ers that accusations of involvement by Israel or 'Zionists' are likely to become most pervasive; just as it was among right-wingers that the idea that Iraq was somehow involved became most pervasive.

IMO, one of the dangers of certain CTs is that they can tempt left-wingers into an alliance with right-wingers. You don't need CTs for that. Progressives who are against the war, and against government encroachments on civil liberties, may become tempted to seek alliances with right-libertarians (and worse) who hold similar views on these specific issues. But strong beliefs that the government and large parts of the world are automatically 'out to get you', and that no mainstream information source can be trusted, can contribute to some (IMO) dangerous beliefs; e.g.:

(1) Icononoclasm and anti-establishment views are in themselves a good thing. The anti-establishment right is at least better than the pro-establishment right, and an alliance between the anti-establishment left and right might be a good thing. (LB: No, it might not! That's one way that fascist movements gained ground in the 1930s.)

(2) It may really be true that Jews or 'Zionists' are controlling the world, and that other countries are being forced or duped into fighting 'wars for Israel'. After all, such theories have been proposed by people who oppose the war and Bush, so there may be something in them! (LB: Do I really need to explain why that view is dangerous? And no, this has nothing to do with objecting to any criticism of Israel's internal politics or its treatment of the Palestinians. Being critical of the latter doesn't require one to subscribe to some 21st century version of the Protocols!)

(3) There is no real difference between right and left beyond some 'formalism' and 'mere words'. Some global elites are manipulating us, and using the left/right distinction to divide us. (LB: It is true that *party labels* may be formalistic; but there is a real difference between right-wing and left-wing attitudes to life. If someone is blaming racial minorities and foreigners for everything; proposing drastic cuts in public services and safety nets for poorer people; and attacking women's rights, then they are no allies, even if they support some of the same CTs as you do.)

(4) No source of information can be trusted fully, and therefore all can be considered equally valid. Right-wing CT sites, such as those of Alex Jones, WakeUpFromYourSlumber, and WhatReally(Never)Happened can be used as valid sources. On the other hand (as one now-TS'd DU-er once proposed), the Holocaust is only a 'purported' Holocaust as 'I don't trust the History Channel'(!) (LB: While it's indeed sensible to question all media sources, that does *not* justify plunging headlong into right-wing cesspools on the grounds that they are telling you what the government don't want you to hear!)

(5) All collaborations between countries, even for the most peaceful purposes, should be seen as actual or potential 'global conspiracies' and as steps in the creation of an evil 'New World Order'. (LB: Here lie all sorts of opportunities for justifying ultra-nationalism, racism and xenophobia. Indeed one of the surest ways of telling that a site or organization is anti-establishment-Right rather than Left is the serious use of the phrase 'New World Order')


I should emphasize once again that people can hold all kinds of CTs from the reasonable to the bizarre *without* supporting direct or indirect collaboration between progressives and the far-right; and people can attempt to validate the far right *without* having any of the usual CTs. But the two do IMO go together more often than would be expected by chance. That is perhaps the biggest danger of uncritical, single-minded support of certain CTs. And in the week of the Tiller murder and Holocaust Museum shooting in the USA, and the worrying rise of Right-wing parties in Britain and Europe - I think we should heed these wake-up calls, and shun ANY progressive/ right-wing collaborations that may lead us to tolerate xenophobia, hard-right economic 'libertarianism', and even forms of fascism.