0 comment Sunday, August 10, 2014 | admin
''It is the Devil's cleverest guile to convince us he doesn't exist.'' - Baudelaire
This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"
Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"
There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.
Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'
The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.
I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.
But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?
If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.
It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.
And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.
The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.
Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.
But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.
Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.
There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.
Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.
This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"
Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"
There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.
Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'
The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.
I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.
But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?
If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.
It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.
And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.
The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.
Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.
But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.
Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.
There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.
Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.
Labels: Conservatives, Conspiracy Theories, History, Partisan Politics
0 comment Sunday, July 27, 2014 | admin
Today I was watching part of a documentary on UFOs. I am usually 'multitasking' and often only watch bits and pieces of these things. But as I watched a segment of this program, with allegations of cover-ups on the part of the powers that be, my mind turned to the subject of cover-ups and conspiracies in general.
I've noticed that for a while, UFOs were a hot topic, then the reports began to dwindle away, and the media to ignore the sightings that are occasionally reported. The attitude that most people seem to adopt towards the subject is a scornful, derisive one. Why? Because the popular perception is that people who 'see UFOs' are somehow kooks, cultists, or attention-seekers, and that only ignoramuses believe that extraterrestrials are joyriding around our skies.
There are no little green men, most reasonable people agree. Here's where the mistake is made, though: many people somehow jump to the conclusion that seeing a UFO is the same as claiming to have seen a ''flying saucer' piloted by little green men. However, seeing an object you don't recognize and can't identify does not imply believing in extraterrestrial visitors or 'space aliens'. It just means you saw something unknown. Lots of credible people have seen unidentified objects in the skies; some of them were/are airline pilots, military personnel, and it's claimed that even some of our astronauts reported UFO sightings when in orbit.
Yet the popular perception is that UFO witnesses are deserving of ridicule or incredulity. Similar attitudes prevail in some quarters where subjects like the North American Union are concerned, or the North American superhighway. A couple of years ago, many 'mainstream' conservatives were harshly ridiculing any talk of such things, more or less likening those who discussed the NAU as on a par with UFO cultists and other such 'conspiracy-mongers.' Michael Medved was one of the harshest and most relentless voices accusing those who wrote about it or discussed it, of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering. Medved's arrogant attitude, like so many who take that tone, seemed to be that he knew more than the rest of us 'paranoiacs', and he knew for a fact that no such plan existed, in fact, no conspiracies or covert plans exist anywhere along these lines.
How can any human being without access to the innermost workings of the government, or of the international elites, say that categorically? Clearly our government, like most existing governments, does not divulge everything to the public, and likewise, our biased and ideologically-driven media do not report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.
So I think most people would agree that governments are capable of concealing things from us, especially when it is deemed likely that making some things public would lead to discontent or unrest among the general public. Sometimes, also, when they are doing things that are clearly against the popular will, or against the Constitution, in the case of our country, they are less than honest and open with us. In an atmosphere of government secretiveness, it is no surprise that sometimes conspiracy theories crop up, as people try to make sense of things that are obviously not being explained credibly by official sources.
The UFO phenomenon is one such area in which the government has not been open and forthcoming, and some writers have asserted that there is government 'disinformation' being sown so as to discredit those who are writing about it and discussing it. We know that governments, including ours, practice such methods in certain situations. Skepticism is a good thing -- up to a point. To be skeptical of everything, or to immediately dismiss speculations as 'conspiracy theories' is not exactly approaching it with a willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. If we categorically exclude certain things as being 'crazy' or 'paranoid', we are not being skeptics in a good way, but are being too quick to jump to the conclusion that ''there's nothing to see here. Move along.'' It seems to me that the preferred attitude is to remain open to various possibilities. If we too quickly rule out certain explanations of a mysterious event, or we categorically dismiss various lines of investigation, that is closed-mindedness. If it's wrong to jump to the immediate conclusion that a conspiracy and/or cover-up is behind something, it's also wrong to jump to the opposite conclusion, before all the evidence is in.
Why do many people immediately deny the possibility of a conspiracy or cover-up? It can't be because there is no such thing as a conspiracy, because clearly there is. Conspiracies have happened throughout history, and they have often succeeded in effecting great changes in the world. Cover-ups have certainly happened. So why is any mention of possible conspiracies greeted with derision so often? Some people are uncomfortable with mysteries. Appearing to have a ready and incontrovertible explanation for something is a way, perhaps, of appearing to be in complete control of a situation. Finding ourselves up against a mystery, an enigma, or an unknown is rather a frustrating feeling, and it does tend to make us doubt ourselves, and doubt our own power, if we can't explain something. It is therefore preferable to some people to invent facile explanations and pronounce the mystery solved, or to otherwise dismiss the existence of a mystery or an unknown.
And what is a conspiracy? It's nothing more than a couple (or more) people colluding in a plan to do something. My 1936 Webster's says a conspiracy is:
1. An act of conspiring. A combination for an evil purpose. A plot.
Surely in a fallen world, conspiracies happen. They have happened, they are happening, they will happen. And the very nature of conspiracies is that they are secretive and concealed. If there is a conspiracy, those involved in it will automatically deny its existence or cover it up.
We are not going to get honesty from the powers that be about the plans for the NAU, or the rumored plans for the world to be divided up into regions under a global authority. Some of the well-placed people in the media and in other positions of power are also aware of any such plans and are doing their part to deny or obfuscate or promote disinformation. So we can't really expect honest answers to any questions we might ask about such things. Still, we have to pursue the truth.
With regard to the death of Joerg Haider in Austria last week, can we peremptorily state that it was a simple drunk-driving accident? I say we have too little information to say that right off the bat. If the 'accident' involved somebody other than this very controversial man, in fact a much-hated man, described by the left-wing media as something like the second coming of Hitler, we might easily dismiss any talk of foul play in his death. If my neighbor or yours was killed in the wee hours in a car accident, we might assume, most naturally, that alcohol might be the cause, especially if the neighbor was known to be a drinker, and especially if there was nothing otherwise irregular about his life.
The ''simplest possible explanation'' might be different in each case. If a man with many known enemies, such as an organized crime figure or a drug dealer, is killed, then foul play might well be a possibility to consider. A controversial politician would be a target. And Haider certainly had many political enemies, some of whom would probably stop at nothing. Personally I am going to be skeptical of any findings about his death which are released to the public. Things are not always what they seem, and we have to balance a healthy skepticism with a willingness to at least admit of certain possibilities in cases like Haider's. Skepticism should not be closed-mindedness.
The truth is all-important and we have to admit that sometimes the true explanation is not the 'simplest' or easiest. The truth has to be followed where it leads. Seeing conspiracies in everything is not a good thing, but neither is denying that conspiracies do happen.
If we honor truth, we have to keep an open mind until we have sufficient evidence one way or the other, and it serves us well to maintain some suspicion of what 'official sources' say, in many cases, especially when the 'official sources' are European authorities. It appears to me that the powers that be in the EU are even more totalitarian and less trustworthy than our own dissimulating officialdom. Let's direct a little healthy skepticism toward them, where it rightly belongs.
I've noticed that for a while, UFOs were a hot topic, then the reports began to dwindle away, and the media to ignore the sightings that are occasionally reported. The attitude that most people seem to adopt towards the subject is a scornful, derisive one. Why? Because the popular perception is that people who 'see UFOs' are somehow kooks, cultists, or attention-seekers, and that only ignoramuses believe that extraterrestrials are joyriding around our skies.
There are no little green men, most reasonable people agree. Here's where the mistake is made, though: many people somehow jump to the conclusion that seeing a UFO is the same as claiming to have seen a ''flying saucer' piloted by little green men. However, seeing an object you don't recognize and can't identify does not imply believing in extraterrestrial visitors or 'space aliens'. It just means you saw something unknown. Lots of credible people have seen unidentified objects in the skies; some of them were/are airline pilots, military personnel, and it's claimed that even some of our astronauts reported UFO sightings when in orbit.
Yet the popular perception is that UFO witnesses are deserving of ridicule or incredulity. Similar attitudes prevail in some quarters where subjects like the North American Union are concerned, or the North American superhighway. A couple of years ago, many 'mainstream' conservatives were harshly ridiculing any talk of such things, more or less likening those who discussed the NAU as on a par with UFO cultists and other such 'conspiracy-mongers.' Michael Medved was one of the harshest and most relentless voices accusing those who wrote about it or discussed it, of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering. Medved's arrogant attitude, like so many who take that tone, seemed to be that he knew more than the rest of us 'paranoiacs', and he knew for a fact that no such plan existed, in fact, no conspiracies or covert plans exist anywhere along these lines.
How can any human being without access to the innermost workings of the government, or of the international elites, say that categorically? Clearly our government, like most existing governments, does not divulge everything to the public, and likewise, our biased and ideologically-driven media do not report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.
So I think most people would agree that governments are capable of concealing things from us, especially when it is deemed likely that making some things public would lead to discontent or unrest among the general public. Sometimes, also, when they are doing things that are clearly against the popular will, or against the Constitution, in the case of our country, they are less than honest and open with us. In an atmosphere of government secretiveness, it is no surprise that sometimes conspiracy theories crop up, as people try to make sense of things that are obviously not being explained credibly by official sources.
The UFO phenomenon is one such area in which the government has not been open and forthcoming, and some writers have asserted that there is government 'disinformation' being sown so as to discredit those who are writing about it and discussing it. We know that governments, including ours, practice such methods in certain situations. Skepticism is a good thing -- up to a point. To be skeptical of everything, or to immediately dismiss speculations as 'conspiracy theories' is not exactly approaching it with a willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. If we categorically exclude certain things as being 'crazy' or 'paranoid', we are not being skeptics in a good way, but are being too quick to jump to the conclusion that ''there's nothing to see here. Move along.'' It seems to me that the preferred attitude is to remain open to various possibilities. If we too quickly rule out certain explanations of a mysterious event, or we categorically dismiss various lines of investigation, that is closed-mindedness. If it's wrong to jump to the immediate conclusion that a conspiracy and/or cover-up is behind something, it's also wrong to jump to the opposite conclusion, before all the evidence is in.
Why do many people immediately deny the possibility of a conspiracy or cover-up? It can't be because there is no such thing as a conspiracy, because clearly there is. Conspiracies have happened throughout history, and they have often succeeded in effecting great changes in the world. Cover-ups have certainly happened. So why is any mention of possible conspiracies greeted with derision so often? Some people are uncomfortable with mysteries. Appearing to have a ready and incontrovertible explanation for something is a way, perhaps, of appearing to be in complete control of a situation. Finding ourselves up against a mystery, an enigma, or an unknown is rather a frustrating feeling, and it does tend to make us doubt ourselves, and doubt our own power, if we can't explain something. It is therefore preferable to some people to invent facile explanations and pronounce the mystery solved, or to otherwise dismiss the existence of a mystery or an unknown.
And what is a conspiracy? It's nothing more than a couple (or more) people colluding in a plan to do something. My 1936 Webster's says a conspiracy is:
1. An act of conspiring. A combination for an evil purpose. A plot.
Surely in a fallen world, conspiracies happen. They have happened, they are happening, they will happen. And the very nature of conspiracies is that they are secretive and concealed. If there is a conspiracy, those involved in it will automatically deny its existence or cover it up.
We are not going to get honesty from the powers that be about the plans for the NAU, or the rumored plans for the world to be divided up into regions under a global authority. Some of the well-placed people in the media and in other positions of power are also aware of any such plans and are doing their part to deny or obfuscate or promote disinformation. So we can't really expect honest answers to any questions we might ask about such things. Still, we have to pursue the truth.
With regard to the death of Joerg Haider in Austria last week, can we peremptorily state that it was a simple drunk-driving accident? I say we have too little information to say that right off the bat. If the 'accident' involved somebody other than this very controversial man, in fact a much-hated man, described by the left-wing media as something like the second coming of Hitler, we might easily dismiss any talk of foul play in his death. If my neighbor or yours was killed in the wee hours in a car accident, we might assume, most naturally, that alcohol might be the cause, especially if the neighbor was known to be a drinker, and especially if there was nothing otherwise irregular about his life.
The ''simplest possible explanation'' might be different in each case. If a man with many known enemies, such as an organized crime figure or a drug dealer, is killed, then foul play might well be a possibility to consider. A controversial politician would be a target. And Haider certainly had many political enemies, some of whom would probably stop at nothing. Personally I am going to be skeptical of any findings about his death which are released to the public. Things are not always what they seem, and we have to balance a healthy skepticism with a willingness to at least admit of certain possibilities in cases like Haider's. Skepticism should not be closed-mindedness.
The truth is all-important and we have to admit that sometimes the true explanation is not the 'simplest' or easiest. The truth has to be followed where it leads. Seeing conspiracies in everything is not a good thing, but neither is denying that conspiracies do happen.
If we honor truth, we have to keep an open mind until we have sufficient evidence one way or the other, and it serves us well to maintain some suspicion of what 'official sources' say, in many cases, especially when the 'official sources' are European authorities. It appears to me that the powers that be in the EU are even more totalitarian and less trustworthy than our own dissimulating officialdom. Let's direct a little healthy skepticism toward them, where it rightly belongs.
Labels: Conspiracy Theories
0 comment Friday, May 30, 2014 | admin
In a previous post I mentioned the article on TakiMag regarding conspiracy theories, and expressed my intention to write a blog piece about it.
The subject of conspiracy theories is a complex one, and I can't begin to do it justice in a blog post, so let me just offer some thoughts about the subject in general.
We are all familiar with certain popular conspiracy theories. I am sure we can all name several of them, such as the JFK assassination theories (multiple assassins, possible involvement of everybody from the various Mafia families to the CIA), the recent 'Truther' belief system, which believes there is a conspiracy to hide truth about 9/11. Then there are those who doubt that man has ever landed on the moon; the moon landing images were all created on a cheap set or in the California desert somewhere, so the story goes.
Then there are the UFO conspiracy theories, and the issue of 'chemtrails.'
These are seldom covered by the 'respectable' media, except in a derisive fashion.
A few years ago, talk-radio host and writer Michael Medved spent quite a bit of energy and time ridiculing and vilifying those who believed that a North American Union is in the works -- even though talk of it has been quite open, with North American summit meetings involving the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Still, some people seem determined to deride and discredit anyone who writes about it or believes the planned NAU is real.
Even today, half a century and more after the 'Communist scare' of the 1950s, even after documents have been released verifying that there were Communists in positions of power, and that there were Soviet agents who passed information to that government -- we still read in the dishonest media the assertion that the Communist conspiracy was all in the 'paranoid' minds of McCarthy and other right-wingers. Many people today believe that the Communist conspiracy was not real at all, only a pretext by McCarthy and others to deprive 'progressives' of their rights and freedoms.
Obviously there are conspiracies.
Our own country came into being as the result of what was actually a 'conspiracy' among English colonists.
The Venona Papers establish that there was a Communist conspiracy to subvert this country. Can anybody look at today's events and doubt that they succeeded to a great extent? The left of course celebrates their 'change', but still deny that any subversion by their side existed.
Not everything is random chance or coincidence, any more than everything is a conspiracy. The truth is somewhere in between.
Similarly, skeptics tell us that they don't 'believe in UFOs' when what they probably mean is that they don't believe in extraterrestrials visiting this planet in some kind of spacecraft. Of course there are Unidentified Flying Objects; many people see things in the skies that they can't identify with certainty. Some may be natural phenomena, some ordinary aircraft which are unrecognized as such. But to categorically state that there 'are no UFOs' is rather silly. There may not be any space aliens flying around our earth, but there are unidentified flying objects, whatever their origin.
It is facile to be skeptical for skepticism's sake, and while skepticism is a good thing to an extent, it can be closed-mindedness and arrogance, because it seems to assume that there are no mysteries in our world, no unknowns. Likewise, 'the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God', believing somehow that he himself knows all that is in the universe. No atheist can prove that God does not exist, though they seem to have an unfounded certainty -- a faith, shall we say -- that He does not exist. Skeptics, including atheists, claim to be people who rely on empirical evidence and proof, but they can offer no real proof that the theist is wrong.
Skepticism can be good but when it means reasoning backward from existing beliefs in order to exclude or to deny anything unknown or novel or unfamiliar is not in the least scientific. Skepticism is not good when it consists of knee-jerk scoffing at anything that does not fit within existing categories. That kind of skepticism is not healthy, but is presumptuous.
Some skeptics can be notoriously credulous when it comes to accepting at face value anything said by 'debunkers', official spokesmen, or whoever they regard as reliable authorities. But yet we know that we have been lied to and deceived in many instances by various authority figures; surely nobody would deny this.
Skepticism is useful when it is directed also at authority figures, and not just at those who hold unorthodox opinions.
Many people use the website 'Snopes' to try to discredit certain stories as hoaxes or 'crazy conspiracy theories.' That website is not an infallible source, and is rather blatantly biased in a liberal direction, yet many cite it as an unimpeachable source of truth. Wikipedia, which I cite occasionally, is likewise biased, and I take that into account. Trusting such sources shows credulity on the part of many self-professed skeptics.
Others take as gospel whatever their favorite TV talking head or blogger says about something. If Coulter or Beck say that ''birthers are nutjobs'' -- to mention another 'conspiracy theory' -- well, that settles it for some people.
There are many people who will not believe something until it becomes fashionable and acceptable to believe it. Sometimes the left and the right converge in believing in the same conspiracy theories (such as the 'Truthers') but they differ in their beliefs as to who is responsible. For the left, it is the old Bush/Cheney axis of Evil. For the right it is -- the Bush/Cheney axis of Evil.
Many, left and right, believe that there is a globalist cabal, trying to corral us into a New World Order. The left, of course, believes it's 'right-wing global capitalists' at the bottom of it, while it seems to the right that left-wing internationalists and Third World admirers are at the root of it. They are both right. Left and right converge when it comes to this globalist agenda. Both sides are complicit, working hand in glove towards the same ends, maybe wittingly, maybe not, but it's all coming together because factions on both sides desire it and are determined to create it.
But many still scoff at any talk of a globalist agenda.
It's all too easy to dismiss something by labeling it in a derisive and dismissive way: ''birthers'', ''truthers'' and the all-inclusive ''conspiracy-mongers''. Even the term ''conspiracy theory'' has become a condescending label which summons up images of paranoid fringe-types muttering to themselves.
A conspiracy is nothing more nor less than two or more people planning, and ultimately acting in concert towards some end. Usually this planning and colluding is done clandestinely for various reasons: it may be for fear of heavy-handed authorities, or, in the case of those in authority, for fear of ''the people'' rebelling against the plan.
And can anybody honestly believe that the very wealthy and powerful, who are used to exercising great power in both business and social circles, are content to sit quietly in the background and not use their wealth and power to attain their ends? Money does buy influence. The elites are used to having their way. They could hardly be content to passively wait for ''the people'' to determine the course of the country.
We all cynically accept that money buys influence, even with our supposedly representative system, and our supposedly open and transparent government.
As for the 'secret societies' that are so much discussed in this context, it's hard to believe that they are just a lot of powerful and influential people meeting to have a meal and shoot the breeze together. These groups are becoming quite open about their role in influencing policy; there is hardly any pretense of their being mere social clubs for the rich and powerful. In any case, there is often a public face, the exoteric side, that is all about harmless 'networking' and socializing, while the esoteric side stays behind closed doors, among the few.
I consider it far more prudent to be open-minded yet cautious. I don't believe everything I read or hear; none of us should, but neither should any presume we know all, and that everything is only what it appears on the surface. The world is a stranger and more complex place than that. And as far as human nature goes, ''the heart of man is deceitful above all things'', so watchfulness is always in order.
It's also worth remembering that wild speculations which may become 'conspiracy theories' flourish best in an atmosphere of secretiveness and deceit. At the very least, those in the media and in elected positions 'conspire' to keep much from us, and to distort and shade what truths they dispense to us.
The subject of conspiracy theories is a complex one, and I can't begin to do it justice in a blog post, so let me just offer some thoughts about the subject in general.
We are all familiar with certain popular conspiracy theories. I am sure we can all name several of them, such as the JFK assassination theories (multiple assassins, possible involvement of everybody from the various Mafia families to the CIA), the recent 'Truther' belief system, which believes there is a conspiracy to hide truth about 9/11. Then there are those who doubt that man has ever landed on the moon; the moon landing images were all created on a cheap set or in the California desert somewhere, so the story goes.
Then there are the UFO conspiracy theories, and the issue of 'chemtrails.'
These are seldom covered by the 'respectable' media, except in a derisive fashion.
A few years ago, talk-radio host and writer Michael Medved spent quite a bit of energy and time ridiculing and vilifying those who believed that a North American Union is in the works -- even though talk of it has been quite open, with North American summit meetings involving the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Still, some people seem determined to deride and discredit anyone who writes about it or believes the planned NAU is real.
Even today, half a century and more after the 'Communist scare' of the 1950s, even after documents have been released verifying that there were Communists in positions of power, and that there were Soviet agents who passed information to that government -- we still read in the dishonest media the assertion that the Communist conspiracy was all in the 'paranoid' minds of McCarthy and other right-wingers. Many people today believe that the Communist conspiracy was not real at all, only a pretext by McCarthy and others to deprive 'progressives' of their rights and freedoms.
Obviously there are conspiracies.
Our own country came into being as the result of what was actually a 'conspiracy' among English colonists.
The Venona Papers establish that there was a Communist conspiracy to subvert this country. Can anybody look at today's events and doubt that they succeeded to a great extent? The left of course celebrates their 'change', but still deny that any subversion by their side existed.
Not everything is random chance or coincidence, any more than everything is a conspiracy. The truth is somewhere in between.
Similarly, skeptics tell us that they don't 'believe in UFOs' when what they probably mean is that they don't believe in extraterrestrials visiting this planet in some kind of spacecraft. Of course there are Unidentified Flying Objects; many people see things in the skies that they can't identify with certainty. Some may be natural phenomena, some ordinary aircraft which are unrecognized as such. But to categorically state that there 'are no UFOs' is rather silly. There may not be any space aliens flying around our earth, but there are unidentified flying objects, whatever their origin.
It is facile to be skeptical for skepticism's sake, and while skepticism is a good thing to an extent, it can be closed-mindedness and arrogance, because it seems to assume that there are no mysteries in our world, no unknowns. Likewise, 'the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God', believing somehow that he himself knows all that is in the universe. No atheist can prove that God does not exist, though they seem to have an unfounded certainty -- a faith, shall we say -- that He does not exist. Skeptics, including atheists, claim to be people who rely on empirical evidence and proof, but they can offer no real proof that the theist is wrong.
Skepticism can be good but when it means reasoning backward from existing beliefs in order to exclude or to deny anything unknown or novel or unfamiliar is not in the least scientific. Skepticism is not good when it consists of knee-jerk scoffing at anything that does not fit within existing categories. That kind of skepticism is not healthy, but is presumptuous.
Some skeptics can be notoriously credulous when it comes to accepting at face value anything said by 'debunkers', official spokesmen, or whoever they regard as reliable authorities. But yet we know that we have been lied to and deceived in many instances by various authority figures; surely nobody would deny this.
Skepticism is useful when it is directed also at authority figures, and not just at those who hold unorthodox opinions.
Many people use the website 'Snopes' to try to discredit certain stories as hoaxes or 'crazy conspiracy theories.' That website is not an infallible source, and is rather blatantly biased in a liberal direction, yet many cite it as an unimpeachable source of truth. Wikipedia, which I cite occasionally, is likewise biased, and I take that into account. Trusting such sources shows credulity on the part of many self-professed skeptics.
Others take as gospel whatever their favorite TV talking head or blogger says about something. If Coulter or Beck say that ''birthers are nutjobs'' -- to mention another 'conspiracy theory' -- well, that settles it for some people.
There are many people who will not believe something until it becomes fashionable and acceptable to believe it. Sometimes the left and the right converge in believing in the same conspiracy theories (such as the 'Truthers') but they differ in their beliefs as to who is responsible. For the left, it is the old Bush/Cheney axis of Evil. For the right it is -- the Bush/Cheney axis of Evil.
Many, left and right, believe that there is a globalist cabal, trying to corral us into a New World Order. The left, of course, believes it's 'right-wing global capitalists' at the bottom of it, while it seems to the right that left-wing internationalists and Third World admirers are at the root of it. They are both right. Left and right converge when it comes to this globalist agenda. Both sides are complicit, working hand in glove towards the same ends, maybe wittingly, maybe not, but it's all coming together because factions on both sides desire it and are determined to create it.
But many still scoff at any talk of a globalist agenda.
It's all too easy to dismiss something by labeling it in a derisive and dismissive way: ''birthers'', ''truthers'' and the all-inclusive ''conspiracy-mongers''. Even the term ''conspiracy theory'' has become a condescending label which summons up images of paranoid fringe-types muttering to themselves.
A conspiracy is nothing more nor less than two or more people planning, and ultimately acting in concert towards some end. Usually this planning and colluding is done clandestinely for various reasons: it may be for fear of heavy-handed authorities, or, in the case of those in authority, for fear of ''the people'' rebelling against the plan.
And can anybody honestly believe that the very wealthy and powerful, who are used to exercising great power in both business and social circles, are content to sit quietly in the background and not use their wealth and power to attain their ends? Money does buy influence. The elites are used to having their way. They could hardly be content to passively wait for ''the people'' to determine the course of the country.
We all cynically accept that money buys influence, even with our supposedly representative system, and our supposedly open and transparent government.
As for the 'secret societies' that are so much discussed in this context, it's hard to believe that they are just a lot of powerful and influential people meeting to have a meal and shoot the breeze together. These groups are becoming quite open about their role in influencing policy; there is hardly any pretense of their being mere social clubs for the rich and powerful. In any case, there is often a public face, the exoteric side, that is all about harmless 'networking' and socializing, while the esoteric side stays behind closed doors, among the few.
I consider it far more prudent to be open-minded yet cautious. I don't believe everything I read or hear; none of us should, but neither should any presume we know all, and that everything is only what it appears on the surface. The world is a stranger and more complex place than that. And as far as human nature goes, ''the heart of man is deceitful above all things'', so watchfulness is always in order.
It's also worth remembering that wild speculations which may become 'conspiracy theories' flourish best in an atmosphere of secretiveness and deceit. At the very least, those in the media and in elected positions 'conspire' to keep much from us, and to distort and shade what truths they dispense to us.
Labels: Biased Media, Conspiracy Theories, Government Secrecy, Right Wing, Skepticism