|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Essays, Opinion, & Commentary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 12, 2005
by Gordon Francis Corbett
Here are some basic facts about conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories connect a few known historical facts to show that powerful men have caused unpleasant political or economic events. This idea has some basic plausibility, because life teaches that any great change requires considerable effort from many people. The secret is knowing how to "connect the dots," and knowing which dots connect properly with which. Conspiracy theorists must guess, they say, because powerful people "classify" the facts that would let them reason convincingly. For several reasons, this allegation usually falls on deaf ears. First, the speaker's chain of reasoning usually does not stand up, because the leaders have sequestered many of the facts needed to substantiate his allegations. Second, many listeners believe that patriotism requires support for their leaders. They think that if the leaders are secretive, their secrecy results from good reasons. Therefore, the listeners reject the speaker's solution, which usually is the responsible officeholder's ouster. Third, because the listeners believe in loyalty to their leaders, the speaker's agitation discredits him as an unworthy malcontent. These reasons and more militate against any attempt to persuade uninformed people that an official, or an official's policies, can be bad. Furthermore, people despise conspiracy theories because they are only plausible. A good illustration comes from office politics. We have all seen fellow employees lay out beautifully reasoned theories about management's future decisions, only to have events prove them wrong. The employees were trying to deduce from insufficient evidence, and the evidence was insufficient because the bosses were secretive. In "A Scandal in Bohemia," Sherlock Holmes advised Dr. Watson, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Holmes had a point; nevertheless, one rarely knows when his facts suffice to make a given conclusion solid. We need to know what knowledge is and how it works. A sound grasp of this subject is necessary not only for the doctor, the lawyer, or the juror, but also for the average citizen. He needs to take the time to assemble seemingly disparate facts if he wants to surmise, and possibly even to frustrate, his supposed betters' plans for his future. Here is a case showing why. In 1940, a U. S. Navy Commander Arthur McCollum wrote a memorandum suggesting eight separate steps that President Roosevelt implemented. This memorandum was secret, but the measures themselves were not. They involved, among other things, moving our Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii, aiding China in its war with Japan, and cutting off exports of metals and oil to Japan. One could argue that if the average American citizen had pondered why the president did these seemingly unconnected steps, maybe someone could have realized that Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to attack us. Then, by making a number of telephone calls or writing an article, maybe he could have saved the lives lost at Pearl Harbor. Today, we have a great advantage that no American had in 1941: the Internet. If we invest the necessary time, the Internet can help us learn an awful lot about our Establishment's plans, from Agenda 21, to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and a lot more. Then, we can see how these data fit into our picture-puzzle future. We must remember that the mosaics we create will only be educated guesses; and, even if they are correct, the decision-makers may change their plans in some way that will "prove" our pictures wrong. Still, the pooh-bahs cannot hide everything. We may not know when Bush will announce the FTAA treaty, but we can tell our Congress that if they pass it, it will put our nation on a conveyor-belt to extinction. We can do that because we know that another regional government, the European Coal and Steel Community, eventually became the European Union, and because the European Union's whole purpose is to abolish its separate countries. Nevertheless, we must remember that facts alone, however accurate, and predictions alone, however sound, cannot suffice. We must be able to show our fellow victims why a given program or decision is wrong. We must lay proper foundations. If we simply assert that Agenda 21 is part of a plan to subvert American industry by paying companies tax breaks to leave our country, or that the Kyoto Treaty Protocols form a blueprint for crippling the industries we have left, our listeners may not believe us, because they lack the data necessary to let them see. The problem is background. If our listeners believe that our country needs uncompromised sovereignty, we can show them why FTAA is bad. If they believe that having foreign firms make parts for our fighter planes is stupid at best, we can lead them to wonder why our leaders would indulge in such stupidity. If they believe that they have a right to buy a house, we can show them why Agenda 21's "smart growth," which would have cities limit single-family homes, is morally wrong. We need to show our friends known and agreed-upon facts, and to ask whether they want our public servants to act as the facts indicate. If they say, "No," we should ask if these "servants" respect their rights. If they say, "No," again, they might be ready to read a copy of something simple, like Bastiat's "The Law," followed perhaps by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." Then, perhaps, they could read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." With that foundation, they may want to read the rest of Rand's non-fiction works, or Gary Allen's books, Alan Stang's "The Actor," James Perloff's "Shadows of Power," or G. Edward Griffin's "The Fearful Master." Our friends need to take baby-steps like these for at least two reasons. First, simply reading the books requires them to punch holes in their already crowded schedules. Second, the subconscious thinking that the books inspire takes more time. Our friends are reading disturbing books of history and political theory that will change their attitudes and their lives. The Japanese have a saying that bears here: "Great ships change course slowly." In short, conspiracy theories are wonderful for cognoscenti who have studied for a long time. They consolidate, and perhaps rearrange, matter already learned. If you have read many books like John Stormer's "None Dare Call It Treason," Gary Allen's "The Rockefeller File," and Antony Sutton's "National Suicide," you have travelled a long way down the road. Our uninitiated friends barely know that a road exists, and they must crawl before they walk. Once they read some of our books, and learn enough to form at least a fuzzy picture of the true situation, we might lend them a copy of Mr. Hoar's "Architects of Conspiracy" or of G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" to let them fill in the details. Days later, when they telephone, we will hear their screams of outrage. At that point, the cycle resumes. Armed with Rand's, Hoar's, Stormer's, Allen's, Stang's, Smoot's, Sutton's, and similar authors' works, our friends will be able to do what H. L. "Bill" Richardson described in his very good and very cheap 1965 book, "Slightly to the Right!" They will be able to start helping their friends to learn what they know. And then, other things being equal, we will be a little bit closer to winning.
Enrich your life with a book about politics and current events... Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine... |
|
Politics Resource Center Main Page |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004-05 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.