Kennedy Conspiracy: Are we all mad?

[John Simkin]

You might find this article in the Hartford Courant amusing:

http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life...CONSPIRACY.html

The science behind why we love conspiracy theories (William Weir)

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Since the vice president shot one of his hunting buddies, a number of alternate theories have been bubbling beneath the official version of events.

Some have speculated alcohol played a role, while others have even suggested a heated argument could have preceded the shooting. According to a poll by Rasmussen Reports, 27 percent of Americans had "serious questions" about the incident.

Not that there's necessarily anything unusual about a hunting accident but because we love conspiracy theories. Dan Brown knows this. He's made a fortune by tapping into our fascination with elaborate machinations of the powerful in "The Da Vinci Code," published in 2003.

The Internet has played a role in spreading theories of all stripes. But where do they come from? According to those who study the science of conspiracy theories, it's possible that some of us are hard-wired to sense high-level plotting.

Some research indicates that an excess of dopamine in the brain can cause people to spot patterns where others see only random data. Dopamine is the chemical in our brains most commonly associated with pleasure. Too little of it can lead to attention-deficit disorder and Parkinson's disease. Too much leads to schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

Researchers at University Hospital at Zurich found that subjects given a dose of dopamine were more prone to seeing faces and words when scrambled patterns appeared on a screen in front of them. Peter Brugger, the neurologist who led the study, says the results show that dopamine not only plays a role in detecting patterns in visual displays but probably in perceiving patterns — real or not — in events.

But can brain chemistry really account for an entire culture of conspiracy? Virtually every major event in history has spawned alternate theories.

The Freemasons (as well as the Federalist Society, the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group) have designs on global domination; the Apollo moon landing was faked; the Challenger space shuttle was purposely blown up to cover up the faked moon landing.

The list of events with alternate theories is endless, as is our fascination. Certainly the excessive dopamine explanation doesn't explain the entire 27 percent cited in the Rasmussen poll. So why are so many taken by conspiracy theories?

Part of it is a natural tendency to find order in things. Psychologists say we're loath to acknowledge that random events and lone screwballs can fell world leaders and cause so much havoc on our world.

"If people see an event like the assassination of a president or the death of a princess, they're more likely to see that as the result of a major cause," says Patrick Leman, a psychologist at Royal Holloway University of London. "That keeps our view of the world as stable and consistent. It's casting around to find an explanation with what we want to see."

Plus, says Robert Robins, we love a good story. And a good conspiracy theory has it all — truth-seeking, battles between the powerless and the powerful. "It gives you a story line; it's good against evil," says Robins, co-author of "Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred." "If you look at the Jacobean period, the standard literary form was the revenge drama. One of the most popular literary forms today is the conspiracy."

For centuries, theories swirled that Pope Sixtus IV was involved in the assassination of the powerful Medici brothers in Florence, Italy. There was no dearth of speculation about what really happened in Lincoln's assassination. And suspicions about the Freemasons' world domination plot originated in the 18th century. But it was the assassination of John F. Kennedy when conspiracy theories took on a whole new dimension in American culture.

"The Kennedy assassination is the first mass-mediated traumatic event that spawned conspiracies," says Mark Fenster, author of "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture." "It was the advent of cheap publishing for paperbacks. There was a greater ability to spread their ideas, and more competing ideas."

Fenster is wary of scientific explanations for conspiracy theories. They can make it too easy to dismiss questions about major events. "Conspiracy theories in the U.S. are related to populism," Fenster says. "It means that Americans have a healthy skepticism of the concentration of power."

[William Kelly]

My longtime Washington associate, John Judge, who doesn't believe the WTC was a controlled demolition and that a hijacked plane actually hit the Pentagon, sent out his "latest rant," which I think is an appropriate response to this article. - BK

OK. You can call me a Conspiracy Theorist if you call everyone else a Coincidence Theorist. But no, only conspiracies are “theories”, well that and Evolution. Ya, right, if this is Intelligent Design, what is a BAD idea? I keep seeing all these so-called journalists barking at Conspiracy Theorists who think anything the government or the rich do could be less than benign. You might get away with criticizing the government for stupidity or incompetence, but if you even hint at intent or intelligent design on their part, you’re ONE OF THEM – a Conspiracy Theorist!.

Of course you could just take recent headlines and imagine saying them, say, even a year before they broke in the New York Times or the Washington Post, and who would have believed you then? There you are before 9/11 saying: The President is deliberately manipulating intelligence reports to sell a war with lies. The President has asked the NSA to start wiretapping citizens getting or making calls with someone suspect of being a terrorist abroad, and won’t reveal the mechanism that allows the NSA to find such people, that’s Top Secret. the President and the intelligence agencies have the names of some of the 9/11 plotters, they suspect they are “suicide hijackers”. They know the method of attack and the specific terrorist targets, they have prepared to defend themselves against just such an attack. They know the timing and imminence, they got a clear warning about bin Laden and attacks inside the US over a month before it happened and they won’t warn us. They told all the surrounding countries that they would invade Afghantistan that October back in July, before the attack.

I know, by now I’m sounding like a madman and grabbing your collar – “You HAVE to listen!”. Another conspiracy nut, right? But in real fact every sentence above is based on hard truth and people were blowing those whistles even back then. The President is currently implementing the Tom Charles Houston plan, at least the part that was made public during Watergate, and maybe the rest, a plan that was called “fascist” by Senator Frank Church’s committee that put an end to it back then. But, there I go again, Conspiracy Thoerizing - unless you READ it.

Funny, when the mainstream press reports it, then it’s correctible and democracy has saved us once again. Ever hear of selective declassification? It’s a coincidence that the story on the NSA surveillance broke the morning of the Senate vote on the Patriot Act. Right? Even though he submitted it a year before? And it must be a coincidence that the Senate vote to restore the Patriot Act came the day after they were locked in the basement of a Senate building for three hours because of a sensor alarm indicating a chemical agent attack, right? And one more coincidence that on the eve of the initial passage of the Patriot Act envelopes with anthrax arrived in the offices of the two main Senate opponents of that Act and scared the bejesus out of Congress?

It’s about whole ways of looking at the world as benign or malignant. After all, how many coincidences does it take to convince you believe in a conspiracy? (Conspiracy means two or more people engaged in secret plans to do something lillegal). Even the left admits there are SOME conspiracies, but they all get exposed and crushed real quick, because the people in power HATE them, and someone eventually spills them to Bob Woodward (I’m quoting Chomsky here, but you probably think I’m making that up too.) So, back to my point, how many coincidences does it take to make a conspiracy? I’ve been collecting them. I haven’t put enough on the plate yet? OK, here’s two more. Brother, can you paradigm?

For some people, the world and the government will never be anything but benign at heart, with maybe a few screw-ups by well-intentioned people, but certainly nothing really evil, secret, well-planned and successful. Someone would talk! Never mind that they ARE talking, which is why I know about it. Never mind that many die trying. Sometimes they talk about each other, ya know. The left paints the whole ruling class as monolithic Structure, and then calls me a Conspiracy Theorist! I make one or two important links and they act like they meant to say Entropy all along. Their conspiracy operates by way of a hidden, mystic hand. They can’t look at a tree, for fear of missing THE FOREST. Meanwhile, I study the trees, their branches, even their entwined roots, they make up the Forest. Ishmael Reed says in Mumbo Jumbo, “The real history of the world is a history of competing conspiracies”.

And it makes me wonder. After all, we seem to have no problem compiling REAL coincidences when it comes to our prejudices against groups we dislike and disdain, or are taught to hate. They can be ascribed malign intent in a nanosecond. THOSE PEOPLE. So, the powerless are really evil and the powerful are benign? In fact, we make excuses for them all the time. The Vietnam war? - that was just a policy mistake; the war on Iraq? – misguided but in the end worth it; the use of 9/11 to gut the Constitution and create a dual-legal system? - just overreaching in a crisis. They didn’t really mean it.

It was Hermann Goering in 1936 who said, “I know two types of law because I know two types of men, those who are with us and those who are against us.” He didn’t mean it. Did the Nazis set the Riechstag afire to pass the Emergency Act or did they just cash in on it? Does it make a difference? Or is it really just that some day, while we have no aspiration to ever be one of THOSE PEOPLE, we secretly keep out the hope that we might become rich or powerful? And because of that, we give them a free ride? After all, what will people say of us when we control the violence of privilege against them?

How many genocides does it take to make a fascist? How many war lies to make a dictator? How much theft to make a Senator? “You should have stolen a railroad,” Mother Jones suggested to the shoe thief. How much bad result does it take to suggest a bad intent? Is it that if they did mean it, we’re REALLY in trouble and have to act? How many Brownshirt “idiots” to make a Nazi Party? How many distortions did it take to erase History? How many conspiracies did it take to make you believe in coincidence?

It doesn’t help that nowadays anybody with a suspicion and a bone to pick can be a Conspiracy Theorist, all you need is a website. If the latest rumor you hear fits your paranoid paradigm it must be true. If someone challenges it, they must be an agent of the conspiracy. If the facts or the photos don’t fit your theory, they are really clever fakes. The LACK of evidence, at least that you have bothered to collect, PROVES you are right. Never mind scientific approach, logic, Occam’s razor, history, everyone is an expert once they see the video twice over, and whatever it is they SEE. And a real expert in the field who disagrees, well THEY would all lie anyway. How many IF TRUEs to make a THAT’S THE TRUTH? If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.

“The political paralysis in America is based on the fact that we are allowed to BELIEVE anything but to KNOW nothing” Martin Schotz said so perceptively in History Will Not Absolve Us. And belief is the easiest of all methods at finding the TRUTH, it takes almost no work and lots of prejudice. “I have a right to my opinion” now replaces the necessity to inform that opinion. Intellectual debate and growth are reduced to one single word now – “Whatever!”. Post-literate, post historical, post-logical, post-methodical, we are a nation of BELIEVERS. It almost makes us THEORISTS look rational.

Try to get your head around this profound insight of Thomas Merton in 1936, the same year the revelation but not the light was coming to Herr Goering: “If America fights Hitler, it will become Hitler”. Whatever could he have meant? Must have been a Conspiracy Theorist, way back then.

Just as I rolled off this set of thoughts a song came to me, since the only real nasty SIN of the ruling class is having illicit sex. That we can credit them with, probably because we are jealous. I thought about Clinton and Monica again and the words started rolling:

WHAT DID HE DO?

What did he do?

Did he recreate the DNA for the Tyrranosaurus Rex?

Did he manipulate some profit off the Stock Index?

Did he sell out to the Military-Industrial Complex?

Did he override the Congress, all Balances, no Checks?

Did he tell the NSA to spy on us and read our rolodex?

Did he drop another bomb on the Slovaks and the Czechs?

WHAT did the President do?

Why - haven't you heard?

The President, THE PRESIDENT had SEX!!!!!

Well you get the idea. Where is Monica when we need her? My chant, back when Clinton renewed the bombing of Bosnia on the eve of his own impeachment, was "Lies and Murder Are What They Teach. Now Here's A Crime They SHOULD Impeach" Even Christopher Hitchens liked that one and quoted me in The Nation. How many bombs does it take to make you believe in war?

- John Judge

Edited March 5, 2006 by William Kelly

[Robert Howard]

I would like to follow in Bill's footsteps, with a few things I have learned in my 47 years.

As a lifelong resident of Dallas, Texas I believe, along with the fact that I have always had an intense interest in history, as well as being an avid reader, (my library has over 500 books, only 75 are on the JFK Assassination) those factors give me an advantage to being committed to resolve the last remains of the hidden history of the JFK assassination, as I call it.

Historian's generally agree that history goes in cycles, one of the most constant cycles in American history is assassinations, whereas European culture having almost a 1000 more years of 'history' to experience the gamut of political reality, tends to take a more 'real world' view of events than in the comparitively younger United States. Thus, when America in the 1960's went through the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., and RFK' they had a perspective free of the shackles of media control, saw the events in the context of politics, money and power and in many individuals minds when combined with the unbelievably poor attempt of government and officialdom to properly investigate, drew the realist view, if it walks, talk's, think's, act's and behaves like a duck, there IS more than a chance 'it is a duck.'

But, to the point at hand. Thoroughout my life I can literally say that when I speak to individuals in Big D (Dallas) regarding the JFK assassination it is unanimously agreed to be a conspiracy, but as they say, that and $ 2.71 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.

The esential point: In 1941 it has been proven that FDR through the auspices of ONI, British intelligence and the codebreakers, knew that the Japanese Combined Fleet was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor, nothing was done to alert Admiral's Kimmel and General Short at Pearl, they were humiliated in a much publicized hearing and American's were informed via the print media, that their neglect was the cause of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Compounding the validity of the assertions of historians that Roosevelt had foreknowledge is the fact thaat his military advisors were telling him that the US Oil embargo on Japan, in retaliation for the invasion of French Indochina, would be considered by the military junta of Hidieki Tojo as a provocation, a causus belli, if you will for war.

Why is Roosevelt not considered a 'bad President', morally as well as in terms of leadership? (He ostensibly led America into a war that quote 'wasn't what America wanted at the time,' as society in the 1940's still had memories of the sinking of the Lusitania (that also was rightly, controversial and was more responsive to the ideals of the Founding Father's injunction of staying free of 'foreign entanglements,' 'an idea obsolescent?' and thus, was to a great degree isolationist in it's outlook.)

The Answer? Firstly his foreknowledge was not a known fact until for the most part, decades later, a generation of people die (the one's who would have been the most scandalized) Secondly, historians consider the 'situation/scenario;'

Roosevelt displayed courage and resiliency, saved Western culture from a world controlled by the Axis Power's of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Two very generalized answers, albeit but they are very relevant to the concepts being argued in this thread.

So? Who is right, who is wrong. The answer in my estimation is that a de facto 'consensus' is somewhat problematic, and largely irrelevant, it is now history, for better or worse.

Does this mean I am condoning President Roosevelt's actions, No.

Does it prove or disprove that there was a 'conspiracy to draw America into War?'

The answer to that question lies within the reader of this post to answer the question, apply the same dynamics to the assassination of JFK, and you may have a 'clearer picture' of why 43 years after 1963, there will not be any cooperation from the government to answer, the question we all want to know the answer to.

If there is one aspect of the saga of the JFK Assassination that thoroughly displays the fact that 'the winners write history,' it is that without exception every lecherous individual associated with the assassination cover-up went on to infinitely better things, the concept that someone like (Mister Single Bullet Theory) Sen. Arlen Specter has lived to tell his Senate compatriots that it is 'not necessary' to swear in Atty. General Gonzalez was a little more more than ironic to me.

Edited March 5, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Ron Ecker]

After all, how many coincidences does it take to convince you believe in a conspiracy?

While there is no set number, I think one can use this rule of thumb: enough is enough. The tragedy is that there is never enough coincidences to convince some people of a conspiracy. This is what is so maddening and frustrating in arguing with people about 9/11. There is no end to it. The official 9/11 conspiracy theory involves one coincidence after another, but people who debunk 9/11 "conspiracy theories" (by defending to the end the official one) don't take this into account. What they do is take each coincidence, no matter which one you bring up (e.g. Flight 77, or something, just coincidentally hit the one recently reinforced section of the Pentagon) and offer a "rational" explanation for it. Then the same with the next one (e.g., it just resembles controlled demolition, three buildings no less), and the next one (e.g., the general in charge of the Pentagon's National Military Command Center just coincidentally arranged to go somewhere at exactly 8:30 am on 9/11, leaving a greenhorn in charge when the crashes started and an ensuing "air threat conference" was bungled, with the general showing up again after all the planes had crashed). Explaining away each coincidence, and failing to see (whether by design or delusion) that the whole structure is put together with coincidences, is a classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

[John Simkin]

The esential point: In 1941 it has been proven that FDR through the auspices of ONI, British intelligence and the codebreakers, knew that the Japanese Combined Fleet was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor, nothing was done to alert Admiral's Kimmel and General Short at Pearl, they were humiliated in a much publicized hearing and American's were informed via the print media, that their neglect was the cause of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Compounding the validity of the assertions of historians that Roosevelt had foreknowledge is the fact thaat his military advisors were telling him that the US Oil embargo on Japan, in retaliation for the invasion of French Indochina, would be considered by the military junta of Hidieki Tojo as a provocation, a causus belli, if you will for war.

Why is Roosevelt not considered a 'bad President', morally as well as in terms of leadership? (He ostensibly led America into a war that quote 'wasn't what America wanted at the time,' as society in the 1940's still had memories of the sinking of the Lusitania (that also was rightly, controversial and was more responsive to the ideals of the Founding Father's injunction of staying free of 'foreign entanglements,' 'an idea obsolescent?' and thus, was to a great degree isolationist in it's outlook.)

The Answer? Firstly his foreknowledge was not a known fact until for the most part, decades later, a generation of people die (the one's who would have been the most scandalized) Secondly, historians consider the 'situation/scenario;'

Roosevelt displayed courage and resiliency, saved Western culture from a world controlled by the Axis Power's of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Two very generalized answers, albeit but they are very relevant to the concepts being argued in this thread.

So? Who is right, who is wrong. The answer in my estimation is that a de facto 'consensus' is somewhat problematic, and largely irrelevant, it is now history, for better or worse.

Does this mean I am condoning President Roosevelt's actions, No.

Does it prove or disprove that there was a 'conspiracy to draw America into War?'

I have posted here an account of what Roosevelt asked Tommy Corcoran to do in China in 1940.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799

One possible explanation for the establishment of China Defense Supplies and the Flying Tigers was to encourage Japan to attack the United States. In Europe we have tended to interpret these events as Roosevelt intended to do what he could to defend fascism in Europe. However, the use of Corcoran and dubious businessmen such as William Pawley, raises the possibility of other motives.

A new book has just been published that provides more evidence that Roosevelt committed America to war long before Pearl Harbor. The book is “My Dear Mr Stalin: The Complete Correspondence of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph V. Stalin.” The letters have languished in the archives for over 60 years. Letters from Roosevelt to Stalin in 1941 shows that he knew America would soon be joining Britain and the Soviet Union in the war against fascism.

[David G. Healy]

I would like to follow in Bill's footsteps, with a few things I have learned in my 47 years.

As a lifelong resident of Dallas, Texas I believe, along with the fact that I have always had an intense interest in history, as well as being an avid reader, (my library has over 500 books, only 75 are on the JFK Assassination) those factors give me an advantage to being committed to resolve the last remains of the hidden history of the JFK assassination, as I call it.

Historian's generally agree that history goes in cycles, one of the most constant cycles in American history is assassinations, whereas European culture having almost a 1000 more years of 'history' to experience the gamut of political reality, tends to take a more 'real world' view of events than in the comparitively younger United States. Thus, when America in the 1960's went through the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., and RFK' they had a perspective free of the shackles of media control, saw the events in the context of politics, money and power and in many individuals minds when combined with the unbelievably poor attempt of government and officialdom to properly investigate, drew the realist view, if it walks, talk's, think's, act's and behaves like a duck, there IS more than a chance 'it is a duck.'

But, to the point at hand. Thoroughout my life I can literally say that when I speak to individuals in Big D (Dallas) regarding the JFK assassination it is unanimously agreed to be a conspiracy, but as they say, that and $ 2.71 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's.

The esential point: In 1941 it has been proven that FDR through the auspices of ONI, British intelligence and the codebreakers, knew that the Japanese Combined Fleet was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor, nothing was done to alert Admiral's Kimmel and General Short at Pearl, they were humiliated in a much publicized hearing and American's were informed via the print media, that their neglect was the cause of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Compounding the validity of the assertions of historians that Roosevelt had foreknowledge is the fact thaat his military advisors were telling him that the US Oil embargo on Japan, in retaliation for the invasion of French Indochina, would be considered by the military junta of Hidieki Tojo as a provocation, a causus belli, if you will for war.

Why is Roosevelt not considered a 'bad President', morally as well as in terms of leadership? (He ostensibly led America into a war that quote 'wasn't what America wanted at the time,' as society in the 1940's still had memories of the sinking of the Lusitania (that also was rightly, controversial and was more responsive to the ideals of the Founding Father's injunction of staying free of 'foreign entanglements,' 'an idea obsolescent?' and thus, was to a great degree isolationist in it's outlook.)

The Answer? Firstly his foreknowledge was not a known fact until for the most part, decades later, a generation of people die (the one's who would have been the most scandalized) Secondly, historians consider the 'situation/scenario;'

Roosevelt displayed courage and resiliency, saved Western culture from a world controlled by the Axis Power's of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Two very generalized answers, albeit but they are very relevant to the concepts being argued in this thread.

So? Who is right, who is wrong. The answer in my estimation is that a de facto 'consensus' is somewhat problematic, and largely irrelevant, it is now history, for better or worse.

Does this mean I am condoning President Roosevelt's actions, No.

Does it prove or disprove that there was a 'conspiracy to draw America into War?'

The answer to that question lies within the reader of this post to answer the question, apply the same dynamics to the assassination of JFK, and you may have a 'clearer picture' of why 43 years after 1963, there will not be any cooperation from the government to answer, the question we all want to know the answer to.

If there is one aspect of the saga of the JFK Assassination that thoroughly displays the fact that 'the winners write history,' it is that without exception every lecherous individual associated with the assassination cover-up went on to infinitely better things, the concept that someone like (Mister Single Bullet Theory) Sen. Arlen Specter has lived to tell his Senate compatriots that it is 'not necessary' to swear in Atty. General Gonzalez was a little more more than ironic to me.

nice summation, Robert