Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:18:59 AM
As my regular readers know, I am terribly
amused by conspiracy theories, though also a bit troubled
by the credence they are given on both ends of the political spectrum recently. From those worried about a North American Union to those convinced Mossad blew up the twin towers or the CIA blew the levees in New Orleans, there is just too much respectability granted to arguments that once would have had no place in either party. I will grant that insane theories have more respectability on the left, the right just barely tolerating the CFR paranoids, if that, but as Pat Buchanan drifts ever more into demented rantings without being drummed out of respectable conservative circles, and Obama paranoia grows, I am afraid the right is
rapidly catching up with the left in that regard.
But I am not here to beat up on either party for their paranoia, at least not today. I am considering a lengthy survey of all the best conspiracy thought out there, but today's topic is much more simple, and much more brief.
Today I am launching a new feature for my site. Hopefully longer lived than my idea for "
No News Tuesdays", where I refused to discuss current events every Tuesday (and idea which
lasted three weeks, and which I forgot and violated two of the three days I did it), this new feature will be irregularly observed. Basically, whenever I feel like updating it, I will. Which, I must admit is much easier for me to do than any regularly scheduled event.
And so, without any more introduction, allow me to present my newest feature: Tips for Conspiracy Theory Buffs.
And our first tip? Very simple!
Tip For Conspiracy Theory Buffs #1:
Should you want to read the most insane, elaborate theories ever put on paper (or magnetic disks), simply go to your favorite search engine and enter "gold". Or just read user comments on any stock site which mentions gold or gold futures. For whatever reason, gold attracts loonies like flames attract moths or lemmings attract inappropriate analogies.
Bonus Tip (#2):
When writing a web post about conspiracy theories and suggesting a search engine, don't mention Google by name, as they figure in more conspiracy theories than you would believe. In fact, avoid all brand names, make copies, don't Xerox, use tissues, not Kleenex. If you mention a brand, I can guarantee some conspiratorially minded individual out there will take it as a sign you are one of Them and in on the whole thing.
And that's it, my first two tips in what I hope to be a long running, if irregularly updated, feature on my blog.
POSTSCRIPT
By the way, I don't mean to imply in my comment above that there is nothing wrong with Google. Their willingness to fold for the Chinese government over censorship does kind of give lie tot heir "Don't be evil" motto. Or at least demands the modification "Don't be evil, but abetting evil is fine". However, the factt hat I recognize Google has done wrong, and has a definite political bias in their choices of what links to suppress and which to leave up in defiance of complaints, none of that means that all the loony theories about Google are valid.
Actually, that is an important lesson for those who sometimes buy into conspiracy theories.Just because a group has done wrong, there is no reason to believe every absurd claim made about them in the future. And the corollary to this: Even should a single conspiracy theory prove true eventually, that does not mean there is any validity to the rest of them.
I mention that last as sometimes people will respond to my conspiracy theory posts by arguing "but there are conspiracies! Surely you know that." To which I need to reply by explaining, yes there are conspiracies, but they are usually small and short lived, and revealed quickly. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, postulate a world run by elaborate plots, formed by huge groups, who act over years, if not centuries, without anyone discovering them. History has no evidence of even one such conspiracy. And that makes a huge difference.
Just one example before I go: John of Procida formed a network of cells in Sicily to overthrow their Angevin occupiers, funded partly by Byzantium to thwart Charles' planned invasion, and partly by Aragon as a means to occupy Sicily and expand their Mediterranean influence. That much is history. Also historical is the fact that even in John's lifetime, the conspiracy was pretty much revealed, and even before the Sicilian Vespers, some Angevins knew
something was going on, even if they did not know what. That is what a real, historical conspiracy is like, short lived, of limited scope, and usually revealed even before it acts, and certainly after it takes one noteworthy action.
The non-historical conspiracy theory argues that those cells established by John of Procida remained together for seven centuries, unnoticed by anyone, eventually forming the basis for the Sicilian mafia. That is non-historical, as it requires a massive group of participants, recruiting generations of replacement members, acting over centuries, without even a single individual breaking silence or any outsider taking notice, until the person promoting the theory put together all the pieces. It is possible, but remarkably unlikely, to the point that it is not unfair to call it impossible.
Hopefully the difference between the two is pretty obvious.