Voodoo History - Conspiracy Theories

[Guest]

It took only three weeks for you to read and reply to my post

Sorry for the delay in replying to your erudite words Robert. Normally as you know I hang on your every word it is just that during term time I have real children to attend to and they I fear always must take precedence.

Unlike you I managed to read all of the book under discussion. Next time you endeavour to read a book I would urge you to persevere for it does put one in such a better position should you feel the urge to go online to discuss its contents with others. Maybe if you set yourself targets and perhaps trail your index finger under the words you might have greater success next time?

I find the venom and bile that Aaronovitch has provoked amongst conspiracists like your good self most interesting given that a major thrust of his evaluation of conspiracism is that it originates from deep seated psychological problems within the conspiracist. I take it you don’t wish to discuss the nuts and bolts (heavy emphasis on the former) of Aaronovitch’s argument or any of the related studies he uses in support? Page 302 onwards on hysteria I found at least interesting. I am sure that once you get your library copy with a really determined effort you might be able to read that section and then get back to me.

It is a little depressing to read that so many of you gathered here seem to think that it is OK to rubbish published written material on the basis of the political affiliations, ethnicity of the author or the religion and motivations of unnamed and to this point unknown donors of political parties the author may or may not support. I suppose this is an easy way of protecting the idea of conspiracy without the inconvenience of assessing the views and evidence of others?

I do not for one minute think that David Aaronovitch offers us the final word on any of the conspiracies he covers. However unlike many gathered here I have not spent my life ‘studying’ conspiracies and was naively hoping that some of our better informed members like your good self would be willing to discuss some of the books actual premises, theories and contents.

[John Dolva]

Andy, your erudite post while maintaing the ascerbic tone shows a side I think would be much appreciated if you could find time to teach various matters. When new ifno comes in on a wide field and often not one that one may be focusing on you rightly direct people to resources but seldom make personal statements or articles about the resource. I think perhaps you see us a lazy or something. But, like you, evreyone has their own thing. I think it's encumbent on the topic sreator to inform, teach. We all kno how to read. The thing is, there's a LOT to read..I'd really like to see more of this educator that obviously is in you.

[Evan Burton]

I find your outrage deliciously ironic since you promote a forum that won't even allow me to look at it!

You are a hypocrite, Peter.

IMO a deep look into who and what A.W. fronts for is needed and all those of good faith to Truth and Justice need to reconsider their participation on this Forum. J. Simkin is blameless to my knowledge, but somehow secretly [to us] silent to A.W. influence and silencing of any mention of conspiracy and the promotion of coincidence theory and those few [5-6] coincidence cognitive infiltrators on this forum...or dying forum.

Who or what on earth do you think I 'front' for Peter?

It is my belief from your actions against me and others that you 'front' for all those who would silence those who question, investigate and try to explain alternate scenarios for official versions of history, assassinations, covert operations, conspiracies, events, voodoo economics, rationales for: war, imperialism, hatred of the scapegoat 'other'; wars on terror, wars on drugs; jihad on what you would label 'nutty conspiracy theorists'. You have tried, and so far managed, to silence my voice. This is not a Forum of free speech much any more, IMO, but one of Walker-approved speech increasingly. Sadly. Your surly manner in this section sets a chilling tone - as it is mean to. Civility is lost on you to those who you disagree with. Why am I no longer a moderator other than your dislike of my political views?! Where was the set Forum protocol to decide on that. Why the permanent moderation [which so far you have allowed NOTHING through and sense ONLY YOU are 'vetting' my posts. What are you afraid of? - I think the truth and those who speak truth to power.

[Jack White]

I am outraged by the shoddy treatment of Peter Lemkin here, one of the most courageous

truth seekers I have known in the past 20+ years. Censorship of his thoughts signals intellectual

dishonesty of the those who control this forum, as well as a paucity of knowledge and intelligence.

This forum was initiated by John Simkin with hopes of making great progress in matters not

covered by mainstream media. It remained that way for a number of years, but has now become

a haven for malcontents banned at other forums. The inmates are now in charge of the nuthouse.

It is now a laughingstock.

When all truth seekers eventually abandon the sinking ship, who will be left for the naysayers and

namecallers to attack? Certainly they will not attack each other! They will have to find another

forum to wreck.

Jack

Edited March 6, 2010 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

Who is trying to wreck this forum?! Andy has taken a courageous step it seems to me out of compassion for all, and not least Peter, who has serious issues to deal with. That is so clear. The way I see it is that it is an opportunity. a potentially noble one.

[Cliff Varnell]

I am outraged by the shoddy treatment of Peter Lemkin here, one of the most courageous

truth seekers I have known in the past 20+ years. Censorship of his thoughts signals intellectual

dishonesty of the those who control this forum, as well as a paucity of knowledge and intelligence.

This forum was initiated by John Simkin with hopes of making great progress in matters not

covered by mainstream media. It remained that way for a number of years, but has now become

a haven for malcontents banned at other forums. The inmates are now in charge of the nuthouse.

It is now a laughingstock.

When all truth seekers eventually abandon the sinking ship, who will be left for the naysayers and

namecallers to attack? Certainly they will not attack each other! They will have to find another

forum to wreck.

Jak

I agree with those who found Peter an inappropriate moderator.

But he's banished?

Bollocks!

Whatever offense he may have committed pales in comparison to the xxxx I've taken

around this joint for years without complaint (hi Craig) -- until now.

[Cliff Varnell]

Whatever offense he may have committed pales in comparison to the xxxx I've taken

around this joint for years without complaint (hi Craig) -- until now.

It didn't seem to bother the moderators when Craig Lamson suggested

I was a corrupt poker dealer because I disagreed with him.

Hey Evan -- want me to drag up some old Craig invective you allowed for years?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Sorry to hijack yer thread, Andy!

Back on topic!

According to my understanding Princess Diana died in a high speed car chase.

There are allegations of a criminal conspiracy, but no prima facie evidence of such.

Jesus' "bloodline" is historical speculation which doesn't appear to have held up well.

By what form of tortured logic does this compare with actual crimes scenes such as

Dealey Plaza and Ground Zero et al?

9/11 was obviously a criminal conspiracy -- unless you think Osama bin Laden himself

hijacked four planes? There are obviously open questions about the ultimate blame

for this conspiracy when you consider the fact that the US Justice Department has never

indicted Osama bin Laden for the crime. As far as Pakistan goes, it is a matter of some

record (Times of India, Agence France) that the then head of Pakistani ISI Mahmoud Ahmed

wired Mohamad Atta $100,000 the summer of 2001.

How does citing these facts constitute "Voodoo History"?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a literary account widely regarded as a hoax. How

is this placed under the same color as hard facts in historic crime?

Apollo was a watershed event in human history that 10% of folks don't buy.

There is certainly no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy involved in the moon

landings.

JFK assassination features an adundance of prima facie evidence of criminal

conspiracy.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

I dismiss the Aaronovitch premise as wholly mechanical and illogical, painting

legitimate obvious views with issues raised only for their frivolity.

[John Dolva]

Sorry to hijack yer thread, Andy!

Back on topic!

According to my understanding Princess Diana died in a high speed car chase.

There are allegations of a criminal conspiracy, but no prima facie evidence of such. - some are hinted at for good reason, and possibly for equally valid reasons will alway remain just that. The behaviour of the press and the royal family was obviously attrocious. I don't know about for brits, but from here it seemed for a moment there would be a change in bloodline.

Jesus' "bloodline" is historical speculation ( - it's fiction!) which doesn't appear to have held up well.

By what form of tortured logic does this compare with actual crimes scenes such as

Dealey Plaza and Ground Zero et al?

9/11 was obviously a criminal conspiracy -- unless you think Osama bin Laden himself

hijacked four planes? There are obviously open questions about the ultimate blame

for this conspiracy when you consider the fact that the US Justice Department has never

indicted Osama bin Laden for the crime. As far as Pakistan goes, it is a matter of some

record (Times of India, Agence France) that the then head of Pakistani ISI Mahmoud Ahmed

wired Mohamad Atta $100,000 the summer of 2001.

How does citing these facts constitute "Voodoo History"?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a literary account widely regarded as a hoax. How

is this placed under the same color as hard facts in historic crime?

Apollo was a watershed event in human history that 10% of folks don't buy.

There is certainly no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy involved in the moon

landings.

JFK assassination features an adundance of prima facie evidence of criminal

conspiracy.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

I dismiss the Aaronovitch premise as wholly mechanical and illogical, painting

legitimate obvious views with issues raised only for their frivolity.

Well argued post imo.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It took only three weeks for you to read and reply to my post

Sorry for the delay in replying to your erudite words Robert. Normally as you know I hang on your every word it is just that during term time I have real children to attend to and they I fear always must take precedence.

The difficulty, Andrew, arises when you can no longer discern the difference between the children you tutor, and the adults who habituate this forum, very few of whom would benefit from your tutorials. For, in order to do so, they would have to know less than you do on the topic at hand. You have made it clear this applies to very few persons who post here.

Unlike you I managed to read all of the book under discussion. Next time you endeavour to read a book I would urge you to persevere for it does put one in such a better position should you feel the urge to go online to discuss its contents with others. Maybe if you set yourself targets and perhaps trail your index finger under the words you might have greater success next time?

Were the book worthy of the effort, I would have expended it. The book is not, so I didn’t. You are free to disagree, of course, but I have yet to read word one from your own pen indicating what makes the scant few pages Aaronovitch devotes to the JFK assassination a worthwhile read. But then, in order to argue anything on the topic, you’d actually have to know something about it, wouldn’t you?

So much easier to read four pages of tripe written by Aaronovtich than to read, for example, 26 volumes of the Warren Commission. Or another 15 volumes of the HSCA, any of which might have caused you to wonder why the "evidence" cited doesn't bolster the conclusions reached. I have expended that effort, but I can assure you Aaronovitch didn’t. Nor have you, but it doesn’t prevent you from presuming to lecture those who have.

What a truly odd world in which we live. I would have thought a teacher, of all things, might actually require an author to know something about his topic before setting pen to paper. Not necessary in your world, obviously.

I find the venom and bile that Aaronovitch has provoked amongst conspiracists like your good self most interesting given that a major thrust of his evaluation of conspiracism is that it originates from deep seated psychological problems within the conspiracist. I take it you don’t wish to discuss the nuts and bolts (heavy emphasis on the former) of Aaronovitch’s argument or any of the related studies he uses in support? Page 302 onwards on hysteria I found at least interesting. I am sure that once you get your library copy with a really determined effort you might be able to read that section and then get back to me.

Finally we get to the nub of the matter. Like Aaronovitch, you can condescend with the best of them, without having actually troubled yourself to investigate whether there’s anything to this “conspiracy stuff.” But why bother with all that effort and heavy lifting when it is so much simpler to merely characterize people who do undertake that effort as hysterics and cranks and mental defectives?

Does it not cause you the slightest twinge of self-consciousness to prattle on about a topic that is clearly foreign to you? Or is the “soft” bigotry which you share in common with Aaronovitch the only grounding you need to make your pronouncements?

If there is venom spewed in the author’s direction, perhaps it is because his shallow, wholly inadequate term paper doesn’t even deserve an “incomplete” mark from those who know far more than he ever will.

It is a little depressing to read that so many of you gathered here seem to think that it is OK to rubbish published written material on the basis of the political affiliations, ethnicity of the author or the religion and motivations of unnamed and to this point unknown donors of political parties the author may or may not support. I suppose this is an easy way of protecting the idea of conspiracy without the inconvenience of assessing the views and evidence of others?

I have asked you to indicate where John Simkin’s observations are incorrect. You haven’t taken the opportunity to elucidate, so one can only conclude that you cannot do so. You have read much more into his comments than I would have done, because none of them seem untrue.

Rather than admit that Aaronovitch is a hack of the first order, you prefer to take umbrage at inconsequential trivia. Since Simkin is the only one to raise such points, one finds it hard to discern the identities of “so many of [us] gathered here” who agree. But to you the one may seem to be the many, because you clearly don’t read well, or you wouldn’t make such grossly exaggerated comments.

I do not for one minute think that David Aaronovitch offers us the final word on any of the conspiracies he covers. However unlike many gathered here I have not spent my life ‘studying’ conspiracies and was naively hoping that some of our better informed members like your good self would be willing to discuss some of the books actual premises, theories and contents.

It is entirely OK that you haven’t spent your life “studying” conspiracies, but without such a background you’re hardly in a position to judge what constitutes a good book on the topic. And since Aaronovitch is as disinterested in the topic as are you, he’s hardly in a position to write a good book on the topic, is he? I would have expected more from a teacher.

[Guest]

I agree with those who found Peter an inappropriate moderator.

But he's banished?

Not banished just under moderation - any moderator can approve or disallow his posts - if they are unsure they should contact any of the 3 administrators,

There are interesting points flowering amongst the predictable ordure since I last viewed this thread which I may return to in the next few days.

[Ron Ecker]

IMO there's a form of bigotry at work in all this.

Having spent most of my life in the Deep South, I have had plenty of opportunities to see racial bigotry at work. It has often been said, and I believe it has validity, that bigots in this sense are people who need someone to look down on. ("White trash" need something lower than themselves.)

In the larger sense of bigotry, who is more looked down on by the rest of the population (and of course by the government and its media) than "conspiracy theorists" with their wacko ideas, tinfoil hats, etc. All CTs must be lumped together, of course. Evidence for this or that conspiracy is irrelevent, these are just people who will believe anything. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if CTs don't all look alike!

What I'm not sure of is the need that's being met by this looking down. We know what the government's need is (self-preservation), but as for the need of other folks looking down their proboscises, I don't quite get it, unless it's the need for security. (I want government that's non-conspiratorial. Therefore my government is non-conspiratorial, and you better not try to tell me otherwise!)

[Jack White]

Hmmmmm...let us figure. Peter was banished for SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF FEMALE FORUM MEMBERS?

Certainly not Junkarinen. And I know it is not Bernice or Dixie. Beckett and Brown are not likely. I doubt that

it is JVB. Linda Minor? Dawn and Peter are friends. I cannot think of any others. I think it is the responsibility of

the forum masters to let Peter face his accusers. And tell us too so we can know who is making up such false

accusations.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

IMO there's a form of bigotry at work in all this.

Having spent most of my life in the Deep South, I have had plenty of opportunities to see racial bigotry at work. It has often been said, and I believe it has validity, that bigots in this sense are people who need someone to look down on. ("White trash" need something lower than themselves.)

In the larger sense of bigotry, who is more looked down on by the rest of the population (and of course by the government and its media) than "conspiracy theorists" with their wacko ideas, tinfoil hats, etc. All CTs must be lumped together, of course. Evidence for this or that conspiracy is irrelevent, these are just people who will believe anything. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if CTs don't all look alike!

What I'm not sure of is the need that's being met by this looking down. We know what the government's need is (self-preservation), but as for the need of other folks looking down their proboscises, I don't quite get it, unless it's the need for security. (I want government that's non-conspiratorial. Therefore my government is non-conspiratorial, and you better not try to tell me otherwise!)

Andy Walker et al are guilty of a mechanical, motivated reasoning which

nonsensically conflates frivolous speculation with physical evidence from

actual crime scenes.

[John Dolva]

why use long words when brevity will suffice?