Voodoo History - Conspiracy Theories

[Ron Ecker]

We see the pattern repeated and repeated and repeated - a case is made against conspiracy x or the 'evidence' presented to support it and out trot the wild eyed cavalry (hello Paul)

I take it, then, that Aaronovich does make a "case" against the large rear head exit wound, which is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. I certainly need to read that.

those with cases, causes and personalities so flimsy as to flinch at the very prospect of what might pass for recognised debate following academic standards.

Or perhaps "academic standards" preclude discussion of the large exit wound. Is that it?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Dear Lord, what is vexing Andy Walker so?

We are accustomed to his imperious pronouncements from on high, for that is the proclivity of school marms in general. And Andy usually dispenses them with an equal measure of wit and pith. But this recent volley of insults contains neither. It is grousing dressed up as argument and falls far short of what we expect of learned men. “... a jew who supports Tony Blair?” Is that what passes for reasoned argument these days, aspersions of bigotry not in evidence here? Being Tony Blair’s useful idiot is hardly a recommendation, but his religion is irrelevant except, perhaps, to those who raise it.

Andy feels he is free to proclaim the greatness of Aaronovitch’s most recent literary output, yet seems to take issue with the right of those who have a different opinion. Those who seek to determine the true causes of historical events shrouded in mystery - there is no shortage of such phenomena - are considered “losers” by this author, yet are nonetheless expected to shell out for his bon mots.

It is not as if Aaronovitch comes without preamble; his sub-literate scribbling on behalf of war-mongers is well known to those who read, and unforgivable to those who think. But never mind that, for even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn. It doesn’t, however, incline thinking people to pick up the latest tome by a blind pig, because the hit-to-miss ratio is simply so unfavorable as to dissuade us from doing so. Reading Aaronovitch on conspiracy is akin to reading a Sarah Palin book on climate change: a foregone conclusion.

As John Simkin cited from the Robin Ramsey quote in Sparky Satori’s article - for which I provided a link - Aaronovitch hasn’t bothered himself with doing the homework necessary to debunk the conspiracies he derides. It is an intellectual charlatan who cherrypicks only what he feels he can neutralize, while gingerly avoiding that for which he has no countervailing argument. It is an impotent fraud who begins by accusing others of having a mental imbalance, then seeks examples to make the case. That is Aaronovitch in a nutshell.

And, based on the blanket condemnation uttered against us all by Andy Walker - “we don't appear to have any of them here.... never have had in my opinion” - Aaronovitch is not alone in this smugly condescending self-satisfaction.

Since you are no longer a co-owner of this forum, and since you find the company here so odious, can I suggest, dear boy, that you run along now and leave us to our own devices, that we might no longer cause you such offense? Or are you one of those little under-achieving snot-nosed public school boys who parade their presumed superiority in order to feel better about their own wretched little lives?

[Guest John Gillespie]

I believe in a higher order of human behavior than I think you can conceive and am saddened that those humans who form the power structures over time continually embrace/enforce/propagandize the base view you see as the 'ceiling'. By the way, how do the rules on ad homs apply to administrators?....just a small aside.

Like I suggested conspiracism clearly gives you a sense of transcendence - it is your own strange esoteric religion.

ad homs?? If you cannot distinguish between yourself and your ideas/behaviour you are truely lost.

Returning to the topic of the thread: Would anyone who has actually read Voodoo Histories like to discuss its contents? Or are we all content to condemn it on the broad minded grounds aired earlier that it was written by a jew who supports Tony Blair??

Why would you expect me to read a book by such a blatant propagandist and ideologue Andy?

Would you recommend I read Mein Kampf to alter my ANTI National Socialism beliefs?

What an extraordinarily obtuse and inappropriate analogy

I would expect self styled 'searchers for the truth' to read widely and not to be afraid to discuss their tentative premises on a public forum without recourse to paranoid projection and downright abuse. Unfortunately we don't appear to have any of them here.... never have had in my opinion..... what we do have is something quite different - a mindset which is utterly illiberal, intolerant of contrary opinion and deeply psychologically damaged. We see the pattern repeated and repeated and repeated - a case is made against conspiracy x or the 'evidence' presented to support it and out trot the wild eyed cavalry (hello Paul) with their 'ad homs' CIA membership and trolling accusations, demands for people who have the temerity to raise questions to be banned, wild assertions that he or she is 'authoritarian' in the pay of god's knows who and/or Nazi, have been too long in the classroom, have hacked the system and edit posts/settings and other such DRIVEL - nothing therefore EVER gets discussed about conspiracy 'x'. This I would suggest suits just fine those with cases, causes and personalities so flimsy as to flinch at the very prospect of what might pass for recognised debate following academic standards.

Not many will remember this so bad have things become, but this forum was intended to be a Teachers forum for the discussion of educational and curriculum issues. I later added a 'Research' as a category on request from a friend ........ And the rest as they say bears very little resemblance to 'history' as anyone with any training might recognise it..... No matter, I no longer pay the bills and the other founder of this forum who does seems quite content with the state things are in so please carry on - enjoy - expect fewer visits from me (there's only so many times you can be traduced online in a working day without getting weary of it and I've pretty much given up anyway), but most of all I have better things to do.

-------------------------------------------------

Mr. Walker,

Congratulations to you and Mr. Aaronovitch for becoming the thing you hate. We are self-styled searchers for the truth who are Voodoo losers with flimsy personalities and who are deeply psychologically damaged. That is, I believe, where you have us. You're offended because your contrary opinions are rejected. Good. They're opinions and you've rejected ours as well. I just cited how. Now move on to what you may believe are facts, with the support of documentation or anything resembling substance and you'll observe that among most of the members there is an excellent give and take. I remind you that this thread began with Bill Kelly's presentation of contrasting opinion - and not in the short form. Members responded, as is the wont on this exceptionally vital and compelling gathering place. Members got it right. The piece by Aaronovitch is insulting and yours bears a strong resemblance.

John A. Gillespie

Edited February 11, 2010 by John Gillespie

[Jack White]

Dear Lord, what is vexing Andy Walker so?

We are accustomed to his imperious pronouncements from on high, for that is the proclivity of school marms in general. And Andy usually dispenses them with an equal measure of wit and pith. But this recent volley of insults contains neither. It is grousing dressed up as argument and falls far short of what we expect of learned men. “... a jew who supports Tony Blair?” Is that what passes for reasoned argument these days, aspersions of bigotry not in evidence here? Being Tony Blair’s useful idiot is hardly a recommendation, but his religion is irrelevant except, perhaps, to those who raise it.

Andy feels he is free to proclaim the greatness of Aaronovitch’s most recent literary output, yet seems to take issue with the right of those who have a different opinion. Those who seek to determine the true causes of historical events shrouded in mystery - there is no shortage of such phenomena - are considered “losers” by this author, yet are nonetheless expected to shell out for his bon mots.

It is not as if Aaronovitch comes without preamble; his sub-literate scribbling on behalf of war-mongers is well known to those who read, and unforgivable to those who think. But never mind that, for even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn. It doesn’t, however, incline thinking people to pick up the latest tome by a blind pig, because the hit-to-miss ratio is simply so unfavorable as to dissuade us from doing so. Reading Aaronovitch on conspiracy is akin to reading a Sarah Palin book on climate change: a foregone conclusion.

As John Simkin cited from the Robin Ramsey quote in Sparky Satori’s article - for which I provided a link - Aaronovitch hasn’t bothered himself with doing the homework necessary to debunk the conspiracies he derides. It is an intellectual charlatan who cherrypicks only what he feels he can neutralize, while gingerly avoiding that for which he has no countervailing argument. It is an impotent fraud who begins by accusing others of having a mental imbalance, then seeks examples to make the case. That is Aaronovitch in a nutshell.

And, based on the blanket condemnation uttered against us all by Andy Walker - “we don't appear to have any of them here.... never have had in my opinion” - Aaronovitch is not alone in this smugly condescending self-satisfaction.

Since you are no longer a co-owner of this forum, and since you find the company here so odious, can I suggest, dear boy, that you run along now and leave us to our own devices, that we might no longer cause you such offense? Or are you one of those little under-achieving snot-nosed public school boys who parade their presumed superiority in order to feel better about their own wretched little lives?

Thanks for the skilled riposte, Robert. Wonderful to see you here recently.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

To all our Keywee (New Zealand) frunds out thire, I'm sure Peter munt no offince. He probably does not understand thet Sheep Trials are your netional sport and outrate even New Zealand, You've Got Talint! on NZTV1! Further, he probebly does not know thet not orl Keywees are named Trivor. In fuct, I mysulf once knew a Keywee who was not named Trivor. Her name was Triva. Completely dufferunt, I'm sure, you'll agree. So please, If you are a Keywee, hive mercy and do not advance upon him with a Haka.

This message has been a Public Service announcement for the preservation of Lemkins; cuddly little critters prone to jumping off conclusions. Thank you.

[John Dolva]

Good one Bruce.

graffiti on bridge in fitzroy (1980)

australia sux

new zealand nil

Bruce

[Greg Parker]

Good one Bruce.

graffiti on bridge in fitzroy (1980)

australia sux

new zealand nil

Bruce

No worries Bruce

[Ron Ecker]

The voodoo history of 9/11 (otherwise known as the official conspiracy theory), as officially written by the 9/11 Commission, includes the following: the WTC cores were hollow shafts (don't believe anything you read about massive steel columns), the collapse of WTC7 was totally irrelevant and thus not worth mentioning, and the question of who financed the attacks is "not significant." I'm sure that Andy and all other clear minds here (if there are any) accept and agree with these historical facts absolutely.

[Michael Hogan]

No, Sir, That Ain't History: A Review of David Aaronovitch's "Voodoo Histories."

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

Tuesday, 09 February 2010 08:47

Excerpts:

David Aaronovitch has not written a "whodunit;" he has not written a "who really dunit;" he has a written a "why only idiots and simpletons think that someone other than who is supposed to have dun it actually dun it."”

In his new book, Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, David Aaronvitch sets out to first, distinguish conspiracy theory from conspiracy (the first is nonsense and the second is common, says the author); second, to arm his "millions of readers" with the information they need to refute the theories foisted on them by crackpots; third, to probe the psychological reasons for the persistent predilection for believing in conspiracy theories; and fourth, to convince the reader that belief in conspiracy theories is "harmful in itself" and if left unchecked and unquestioned, leads to "disastrous decisions." Admittedly, this may or may not be so. There are those determined to question the truth of everything regardless of contradictory testimony. These people are no more deluded or dangerous than those on the other end of the spectrum that are devoted to rock-ribbed support of the canned chronicles of history.....

.....One last aspect of Aaronovitch's book must be addressed in a similar vein. Those who are truly steeped in the historical record of the rise and fall of the grand republics and empires of history realize that the powerful conspiracies contrived to enslave mankind are not concocted in advertised meetings attended by secretaries transcribing the minutes. Those confabs and the plots hatched therein are more secretive, surreptitious, and ultimately Satanic than any of the fantastical fiction ever produced by the penny press.

There is harm in believing conspiracy theories for people like Aaronovitch who work for establishment media. The most pernicious danger is that perhaps one will come to question the pre-packaged answers and the party-line press releases and discover for himself a more harmful purpose (other than accident) in the fulcrums upon which the axes of history turn.

Full article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/re...odoo-historiesq

Edited February 11, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Jack White]

The voodoo history of 9/11 (otherwise known as the official conspiracy theory), as officially written by the 9/11 Commission, includes the following: the WTC cores were hollow shafts (don't believe anything you read about massive steel columns), the collapse of WTC7 was totally irrelevant and thus not worth mentioning, and the question of who financed the attacks is "not significant." I'm sure that Andy and all other clear minds here (if there are any) accept and agree with these historical facts absolutely.

Ron...absolutely succinct and correct!

[Guest]

This is for Andy

Thanks - another fine copy and paste. When you have something to say be sure to let us know.

Still waiting if there's anyone out there who has actually read the dreadful Aaronovitch's book who'd like to discuss it - believe it or not this is the thread for you

[Guest]

Some of the duller students need a second repeat....or it will be in the corner all afternoon with no lunch!

That bully mistakenly promoted to hall monitor for one!

Give us an opinion of your own Peter - there must be something in there somewhere ---- SURELY?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Please write a review of this book

http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Histori...=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

It is selling really fast, and is pure mental sewage brought to us by a leading proponent of Blair Iraq. It baby and bathwater's JFK assassination with the Da Vinci code. It has four pages on JFK assassination and is just sad

Since this book is selling so much it is a great way to promote other books like

Unspeakable, the new edition of Evica. etc. Anyone with any time to spend on this could easily write the top review and it WOULD BE SEEN BY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS. All you have to do is..

INSERT A PRODUCT LINK... THE PRODUCT LINK IS A GREAT WAY TO INTRODUCE MANY MANY MANY READERS TO OTHER BOOKS THEY WOULD NEVER OTHERWISE HEAR ABOUT. JFK assassination researchers should be spending every 7th minute of their remaining ones on this planet product linking as it is perhaps the only remaining mass media way of getting lots of new readers in a media system that is now factory produced cottage cheese.

Or... dont, spend ALL your time on small sites ... allow this sewage to tinge an entire new generation, and then make comments on a small website about how dumb everyone is.... This Aaronovitch site is just mindblowingly propagandistic. It has really reached a new level...now please take action...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The principle of Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/books/16aaron.html?hpw

Aaronovitch's book is plugged by the New York Times this week, in a review that claims to rely on LOGIC.

According to the reviewer, Occam's razor suggests that the stork brings babies, since that explanation is much simpler than that complex theory involving the birds and the bees.

Of course the Occam's razor known to logic is just a little bit sharper than the Times's reviewer seems to think. It states that the hypothesis containing the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is ususally the correct one.

As critical readers of the Warren Report can see, the case against Lee Oswald involves a great many assumptions, while the case for his innocence requires only one. Occam's Razor doesn't help Aaronovitch in the JFK case, even though he uses Matthew Smith to give the rest of us a bad name. I have never met a JFK researcher who considers Matthew Smith a serious student of the case.

No doubt Occam's Razor helps Aaronovitch in some of the wilder conspiracy theories he deals with, but if the Times reviewer is accurate then we can say that logic is not his strong suit.

It seems Aaronovitch

"argues that overarching theories tend to be “formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.”

Yet when when dealing with the Red Scare conspiracy theory of the so-called McCarthy era (in which Lee Oswald became a victim)

Mr. Aaronovitch writes: “They were East Coasters or Hollywooders; they were educated; they were city dwellers; they liked art and fancy music; they were separate from — and unsympathetic to — the daily travails of the American little man.”

So conspiracy theories are the product of East Coasters and Hollywooders who are educated and like art and fancy music, the politically defeated and the socially defeated?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

The principle of Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/books/16aaron.html?hpw

Aaronovitch's book is plugged by the New York Times this week, in a review that claims to rely on LOGIC.

According to the reviewer, Occam's razor suggests that the stork brings babies, since that explanation is much simpler than that complex theory involving the birds and the bees.

Of course the Occam's razor known to logic is just a little bit sharper than the Times's reviewer seems to think. It states that the hypothesis containing the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is ususally the correct one.

As critical readers of the Warren Report can see, the case against Lee Oswald involves a great many assumptions, while the case for his innocence requires only one. Occam's Razor doesn't help Aaronovitch in the JFK case, even though he uses Matthew Smith to give the rest of us a bad name. I have never met a JFK researcher who considers Matthew Smith a serious student of the case.

No doubt Occam's Razor helps Aaronovitch in some of the wilder conspiracy theories he deals with, but if the Times reviewer is accurate then we can say that logic is not his strong suit.

It seems Aaronovitch

"argues that overarching theories tend to be “formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.”

Yet when when dealing with the Red Scare conspiracy theory of the so-called McCarthy era (in which Lee Oswald became a victim)

Mr. Aaronovitch writes: “They were East Coasters or Hollywooders; they were educated; they were city dwellers; they liked art and fancy music; they were separate from — and unsympathetic to — the daily travails of the American little man.”

So conspiracy theories are the product of East Coasters and Hollywooders who are educated and like art and fancy music, the politically defeated and the socially defeated?

----

It is simply incredible that an Oxbridge edjumakated War ho like Aaronovitch could mouth lines like that whih are so transparently designed to appeal to Reagan dems. and rich folks who want to seem earthy at the same time. This book is all mental-fashion accessorizing and no fact. A whole new level that would herniate Orwell. It must be roundly trashed by anyone with a bit of free time on Amazon. Since so many people will see your review, it is well worth your time.