It’s always a bit uncomfortable when I’m having a conversation with someone and they drop the:
“Sandy Hook/9-11 (insert conspiracy here) was a hoax” thing on you.
It isn’t uncomfortable for me discussing the possibility of any newsworthy event actually being a conspiracy, because the U.S. government has routinely engaged in False Flag events and misinformation campaigns.
It is uncomfortable because I really don’t know what I’m getting into.
I have found that the people most likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking represent a few distinctive camps. The problem is none of these people are really normal, in the sense of being white bread vanilla wafers.
Often, they’re either overly informed or completely uninformed and there’s not much in between. Therein lies the problem.
It is a product of the mainstream media, and whether it is by design, which I believe, or just an effect, it has marginalized anyone with an opinion outside of the status-quo.
Regardless, this is why I can’t engage in these conversations with strangers anymore. Here, in order of appearance, are the people who want to break down 9-11 with you:
1) The Complete Fucking Moron. Sideburns usually. Uneducated an insecure about it, he watched the Zeitgeist movie on Youtube and decided this was his ticket to having an original thought. He is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was an internal maneuver and he will cite a bunch of information about the rate at which steel melts with a tone much more certain than that of your average Rhodes chemist. He can’t name the three branches of government but can tell you exactly how they work. As I’ve always said; I watch a lot of online porn, but I wouldn’t consider myself a gynecologist.
2) The Disenfranchised Guy. This guy is informed, of above-average intelligence, and on most counts a rational human. He is in fact so rational that he now believes absolutely nothing.
You can’t blame him, he knows everything from the fairly obvious Kennedy Assassination fiasco to the more easily provable George W. Bush Earpiece debacle and everything in between. The problem is, this guy is essentially a Political Lesbian.
He’s been fucked over by the system so much that he can no longer trust it – even when its telling him the truth.
When Twinkies were pulled from shelves, he theorized that the Tea Party may be building bombs from the trans fat.
While I certainly sympathize with this dude, he is always Alex-Jonesing to not believe, and at a certain point it becomes ridiculous and invalidates any of his more sound points.
3) The Off-His-Meds Guy. This guy often correlates political happenings to events in his personal life. If he just got laid, he believes in HOPE. If someone threw a sandwich at him while he stood at the bus-stop, he shifts into manic mode and intertwines stories about Castro and the CIA with those of a chick named Chelsea.
The problem is that this guy seems normal until you actually flip his switch by pointing out that Newt Gingrich is fat while you nervously stare at muted CNN on the flatscreen of your dentist’s waiting room. That’s when he loses it and you’re in for the long haul. He’s one of the main reasons I don’t broach politics to strangers.
Let’s go into this a bit deeper in Parts II and B12. Sorry, I don’t know Roman Numerals, they’re pointless and pretentious. That’s why the NFL uses them. Anyway, Parts 2 and 3 are forthcoming.
I’m just curious if there are any conspiracy theories that you DO believe in.
No, I don’t believe in any conspiracy theories. There are certain unpopular facts that are verified as being true, but that doesn’t make them conspiracy theories – just actual conspiracies that occurred. There’s a big difference.
I think it’s too facile to say “verified as being true.” And it’s too facile to claim there’s a big difference. Let’s take an example. I think that the guy who filmed Mohammed al Dura “dying” fooled millions of people into thinking the IDF shot the kid. And that he had lots of helpers. In my opinion, it was proven that he staged or faked it. But who can say the proof I believe in was officially “verified”? In the end, my side believes/argues one position and the other side believes/argues the other position. You might not buy this proof. Let’s say you don’t. Let’s say you think my proof is terrible. Then you would probably accuse me of believing in a conspiracy theory. But how could I when I claim that my proof was verified as true, and that it was an actual conspiracy that occurred?
Very well said – I think it is important to look at cause and effect. Like, if something conspiracy prone, like a terrorist attack or a suspicious piece of legislation occurs, who benefits from it? From there, I think it can often times be inferred that a conspiracy did in fact occur, because the only other explanation would seem to be no explanation. Make sense?
Sounds good to me. So if I can ask my original question again, but a bit differently: are there any events that happened in the world in which some people claim there’s a conspiracy behind it, and others think there isn’t, but you side with those who think there is? It need not be a big conspiracy. It can simply be a case of dishonesty that fooled a large number of people. (I guess I’m looking for an example where those who think there isn’t are respected journalists — respected, but mistaken.)
Looking forward to parts ii and iii.
Yes, I think there are. Without getting into the JFK thing, Bay of Pigs and all of that, it would probably be smart to start with an easily verifiable case of dishonesty to extrapolate from. Probably the most notable example I can think of would be the case of George W. Bush wearing a wire during his debate with Gore. It is easy to see and verify. The New York Times passed on running the alarming photographs of this because they ‘didn’t want to sway the election’ in their words. Let alone the point of a newspaper, especially a respected one, and ironically one criticized as being too liberal, is to report news, not to worry about the repercussions that could come from them reporting the news. That is the point of the news. But there was something fishy going on and they didn’t report it. Salon ran it, and W. won an illegitimate election.
That’s the most concrete I can think of. But let me write something tomorrow to address your question more thoroughly. I appreciate your reading.