In various ways, I think all human beings are conspiracy theorists. We all believe in things other people don't, controversial things, unproven/able things, think contrary to what the government or other officials say, what is known as officialdom and whatever else 'conspiracy theorist' is defined as that doesn't already fit in what I've described. But I've been following Salon's coverage of conspiracy theorists after the Boston terrorist attacks. Most media portray conspiracy theorists the way Salon does, but Salon has an individual staff writer dedicated to badmouthing conspiracy theorists with every column that he writes. I don't know if he actually believes half of the words he writes, but I do agree with him on Alex Jones. Nevertheless, there is certainly an anti-conspiracy theorist vibe and mentality to certain people, which in all regards is ironic, because unless they believe word-for-word everything that they are told or read by or about the government and everything that comes from them, somewhere in their mind, they're going to have a contrarian thought.
Just goes to show how easy people are to program and manipulate. It isnt very difficult to deprogram most people when it comes to this if they have any amount of intellectual honesty. Just run a series of questions by them until you bring them to the conclusion( of course they must feel like they stumbled upon the conclusion, rather than being led by you) that their opinions on conspiracy theories are illogical and not well thought out. If done right you just turned a switch on in someone's mind that cant ever be turned back off, even if they wanted to.
Let me guess, the Salon guy's conspiracy theory is that there is a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists gathered in a smoke filled room somewhere discussing all the ways to discredit the Salon guy.
Lol, no. He's anti conspiracy theorist to a high degree. He has pounced on every opportunity he has been given to write about conspiracy theorists. I would say that he's a firm believer in the (*)(*)(*)(*)-up theory of history and only that way.
Though the Iraq War was thought of prior to 9/11, it was 9/11 that gave us the green light to do our thing in those foreign sands.
There definitely are conspiracy theorists that are nutters, but I think these days, anyone that doesn't agree with the mainstream media can get labeled a conspiracy theorist. But despite all that, I've always found the topic of hidden agendas interesting and sometimes I like to entertain the thought about reptilians running our government, if only for the sci-fi value.
The term conspiracy theorist usually applies not to those who have "aberrant thoughts", but rather those who either have taken on thoughts that are laughably out of touch with reality, usually long since debunked, and refuse to adjust their views given new evidence (general rule of thumb: when you respond to a piece of evidence that debunks your bizarre ideas by claiming that the piece of evidence is phony with no proof thereof beyond "well, it has to be, because otherwise I would be wrong and I know I'm right", you're a conspiracy theorist) or those who more or less buy into all of that type of crap.
I think you're somewhat right, but the oppostie can be equally as dangerous. The anti-conspiracist (who doesn't believe that conspiracies are possible) and the conspiracist are both hard-line conformists. They've picked a side, and their side is RIGHT, and further anyone who disagrees is somehow deluded or dangerous. And the part that is actually dangerous is the point -- they're easily lead, easily convinced, and dependent upon someone else to tell them what they think. Independence is not selecting a more "counter culture" set of beliefs, it's being able to look into assumptions and facts and decide whether the theory makes sense. Personally, I'll listen to any theory at least once, and if it's nonsense, it's not true. I don't think the Loose change 9/11 makes sense, as the number of people needed to pull it off (to say nothing of the expense) makes it virtually impossible to pull off without someone giving advanced warning or messing up. On the other hand, a conspiracy on JFK does make sense, as it's cheap, easy, and there's a clear motive (if the Russians get blamed, the planet gets nuked). So the FBI or CIA blames Oswald, and we don't go to Defcon 1. Kinda strange to think that Oswald was a martyr to save the planet, that Oswald died to save the world, but that's the theory that makes sense.
There is a difference between conspiracy theorists and people who question the government on things. Just because someone questions the story of the government doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist. For example, George W. Bush, as President, was fixed on invading Iraq and chose to see his intelligence through that lens. In fact his new library basically says that. Questioning his motives as there were no WMDs is not a conspiracy theory. Now if you say he invaded Iraq to cover up a debt he owed to the House of Saud or that Jewish handlers wanted to save Israel that is a conspiracy theory. And guess what, some conspiracy theories can be true, but they must be supported by facts. Now the Salon writer and people like me attack the conspiracy theorists who look at an event, look for things that don't add up in their minds and create elaborate explanations that involve cabals, fake dead people and patsies. Now someone mentioned JFK. So here is the thing. Currently there are people writing that Kennedy was shot: 1. From the grassy knoll by a man in uniform 2. From under the street through a storm sewer opening 3. The driver turned and fired 4. From another floor of the book depository. These are all currently being updated theories on the web. But here is the thing. Both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations failed to do one thing right in their investigation. Actually mimic the shooting. When this has been done, 3 shots from the 6th floor by one person is not only likely it is the best explanation. There was no magic bullet, there was no second shooter. But here is another clear difference between conspiracy theorists and simply questioning authority. When faced with evidence to prove yet another aspect of the story, conspiracy theorists reject it out of hand, call the people who produce government or cabal shills and move on. Watch the so-called debates between 9-11 truthers and people like Popular Mechanics writers and you will see this in full force. Just this week a piece of what is likely one of the planes that hit the towers was found wedged between two buildings in lower Manhattan. It took less than an hour from the story breaking for truthers to say it was planted. Conspiracy theorists aren't rational. That is a fact.
We saw a similar thing when it comes to the moon landing: we had the technology to go to the moon at the time, but we did not have the technology to fake it. But of course, Conspiracy Theorists don't really care.
The term conspircy theorist is useless, since history is a series of conspiracies mostly for evil and some for good by small elites/families/interest groups. Any serious books about the Anti-Mason party and it's effects on US political culture?
