Conspiracy Theories

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I must say that having been away for a few days it has been most interesting reading through the many thousands of words my initial observations have stimulated.

For those of you who rather hopefully suggested that I was 'just having a bit of fun' by posting as I did, and those of you who rather clumsily and totally spuriously suggest that I like to label anyone who disagrees with me as an anti-Semite it would be wise to disabuse yourselves of these strange and unsubstantiated notions.

I am interested in the psychological profile of the conspiracy theorist and it is clear from the violence of the responses to my raising of such issues that elements of paranoia and obsession are indeed present in the minds of some who post here.

I use the word paranoia in its proper sense viz the tendency to project negative attributes into others to protect the self. I believe this is a common general tendency which could be used to help to explain why the "Jews, capitalists, communists, republicans, disinformation agents, CIA, Cubans, Blacks etc. etc." (delete for paranoid preference) can be accused of such a range of historical misdoings. I am also interested in the role paranoia plays in the formation of ideologies - fascism, Marxism, feminism - but this is the stuff of another thread to annoy you all

I have also been interested by the attempts half way through the thread to differentiate between the 'lunatic’ and the legitimate conspiracy theories. I would not presume to be able to make such a distinction but would advise those investigating "conspiracies" to proceed both with an appropriate respect for the academic discipline of history and a clear understanding of how the desire to project may vitiate the validity of what may appear to the conspiracist as self evidently sensible conclusions.

Here's a quick scrath n sniff test. Who belived that WMD's would be found in Iraq. Who believes that Blair, and Bush, honestly thought that such weapons existed? Who believes that the documents supporting this were not complete fabrications, designed to enable an unlawful invasion? who believes that the invasion of Iraq was a conspiracy..

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Or, Who believed Scargill when he said in early 1985 that the true Tory aim was to decimate Britains coal industry. Who doesn't believe that that decision was a conspiracy, taken at the very highest levels of Government, and commerce, and further, had been part of an unwritten Tory agenda since the 72, and 74 strikes?

[Guest]

Or, Who believed Scargill when he said in early 1985 that the true Tory aim was to decimate Britains coal industry. Who doesn't believe that that decision was a conspiracy, taken at the very highest levels of Government, and commerce, and further, had been part of an unwritten Tory agenda since the 72, and 74 strikes?

Or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or that Elvis Presley killed Marilyn Monroe, or the moon landings were faked, or that the Illuminati rule the world.

Where, why and how do you draw the line?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Handwaving Andy? I dont know, I personally dont believe any of your examples, I suppose you posted the most daft with that in mind, BTW you haven't answered my question. Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a conspiracy formed at the very highest levels of US, and British Government.

[John Simkin]

Or, Who believed Scargill when he said in early 1985 that the true Tory aim was to decimate Britains coal industry. Who doesn't believe that that decision was a conspiracy, taken at the very highest levels of Government, and commerce, and further, had been part of an unwritten Tory agenda since the 72, and 74 strikes?

Or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or that Elvis Presley killed Marilyn Monroe, or the moon landings were faked, or that the Illuminati rule the world.

Where, why and how do you draw the line?

The point is that all cases should be judged on their own merits. Why do you seek to lump them altogether? I do not believe in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, UFOs, the idea that the moon landings were faked, that the Illuminati rule the world or any conspiracy involving Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley.

I have argued that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that the full story of Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal has never been told, that Tony Blair lied about the reasons why the UK carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq and that the current government has been involved in a series of corrupt activities concerning PFI, honours and arms deals. I just ask to be judged on what I post rather than being falsely labelled as a conspiracy theorist.

[Mike Tribe]

Far be it from me to even think of defending Andy. He's more than capable of doing that for himself... However, I suppose those of us who don't share the enthusiasts' keen obsession with the minutae of the various conspiracies which seem to dominate all discussion on this forum, might perhaps be forgiven for asking ourselves if this is really what "education" is all about.

If leave the E-HELP messages to one side for a moment since some of these are clearly concerned with "housekeeping matters" relating only to those who attended the recent conference, of the current "today's active topics", 11 were about the JFK matter, and 5 were about other supposed conspiracies. That left only three, an interview with Lance Price, a new member biography and an announcement about the forum in French, about other education issues.

I know John gets upset when I write about this, and I'm still not sure why. All I'm saying is that the banner at to top says this is a forum for teachers and educators and yet discussion has come to be dominated -- some would say unhealthily -- with what can only be seen as a tangental issue in education. Any teacher checking in to the forum for the first time would rapidly be given the impression that this was a forum dedicated to political conspiracies rather than to education in its broad sense. Many of them would be discouraged by this and not return. This would be a great pity because there's a lot of good, useful stuff here as well once you've ploughed through the latest on Tosh, Liddy and the others...

[Jack White]

Mr. Walker strangely says:

"I have also been interested by the attempts half way through the thread to differentiate between the 'lunatic’ and the legitimate conspiracy theories. I would not presume to be able to make such a distinction but would advise those investigating "conspiracies" to proceed both with an appropriate respect for the academic discipline of history and a clear understanding of how the desire to project may vitiate the validity of what may appear to the conspiracist as self evidently sensible conclusions."

So he admits to STUDYING CONSPIRACISTS WITHOUT STUDYING THE "CONSPIRACY THEORIES".

He is not interested in FACTS, just those who study them. Very peculiar.

He labels some "lunatic conspiracy theories" and some "legitimate conspiracy theories".

I am baffled that HE CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE WITHOUT STUDYING THE EVIDENCE.

Certainly he cannot be a scientist. Maybe he goes on intuition or "gut feelings". He is like those who

think OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole based only on press reports, without studying any of the

abundant evidence.

I do not study "conspiracies". I study photographs. In the JFK case there are hundreds of

faked photos, including the Zapruder film. I do not know who faked them or why. In the

Apollo moon missions, there are hundreds of faked photos. I do not know who faked them

or why. I do not know any details of any conspiracies which may have been involved.

In the case of 911, I have found hundreds of anomalous photos which indicate that the

official story is false. I cannot fathom what kind of conspiracy may have been involved.

I have no "psychological need" for conspiracies to be responsible. I look at the facts and

see whether they hold up to scrutiny. I AM NOT A CONSPIRACIST such as Mr. Walker

speculates about. He seems to have a psychological need for there to be some "LUNATIC

conspiracy theorists". CONSPIRACIES DO EXIST.

Jack

[John Simkin]

If leave the E-HELP messages to one side for a moment since some of these are clearly concerned with "housekeeping matters" relating only to those who attended the recent conference, of the current "today's active topics", 11 were about the JFK matter, and 5 were about other supposed conspiracies. That left only three, an interview with Lance Price, a new member biography and an announcement about the forum in French, about other education issues.

This is clearly incorrect. There were also two very important E-HELP seminars posted by Richard Allaway and Russel Tarr. As a history teacher (and E-HELP associate) I would have thought you would have been interested in these postings.

[Mike Tribe]

I am indeed, and I have read them with interest. I did say -- as you noted in your quote -- that "some" of the E-HELP postings were just housekeeping, not that they all were. I also said that "there's a lot of good, useful stuff here". I would certainly include these two postings in that category.

So, what I said is not "clearly incorrect" as you suggest. I tried to keep what I wrote as neutral and courteous as I could. Why must you adopt such a hostile tone?

[Guest]

I just ask to be judged on what I post rather than being falsely labelled as a conspiracy theorist.

Fine, but let us not forget that this is a self created label in a section you created and named yourself. There should be little surprise that it attracts visitors across the sanity spectrum.

I have the utmost respect for John Simkin as an historian, intellectual and friend despite the fact that I frequently disagree with him. Actually it is most likely because I frequently disagree with him - he rarely fails to make me think.

I am however less confident of the historical skills, balance and psychological health and well being of some of the others.

Unlike Mike I haven't a problem with conspiracy theories, however deranged, clogging up the Education Forum, unless they are theories which are based on racial prejudice or hatred. Hence the short shrift I give to our occasional Neo Nazi visitors.

It does concern me that in a section which prides itself I presume on divergent thought that a short post which questions the psychological profile of conspiracists should engender such unmeasured responses.

I guess some things are too painful to contemplate or that some thoughts too divergent from the notional norms and values of the Forum that they must be avoided or attacked.

[Len Colby]

Or, Who believed Scargill when he said in early 1985 that the true Tory aim was to decimate Britains coal industry. Who doesn't believe that that decision was a conspiracy, taken at the very highest levels of Government, and commerce, and further, had been part of an unwritten Tory agenda since the 72, and 74 strikes?

Or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or that Elvis Presley killed Marilyn Monroe, or the moon landings were faked, or that the Illuminati rule the world.

Where, why and how do you draw the line?

The point is that all cases should be judged on their own merits. Why do you seek to lump them altogether? I do not believe in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", UFOs, the idea that the moon landings were faked, that the Illuminati rule the world or any conspiracy involving Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley.

I have argued that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that the full story of Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal has never been told, that Tony Blair lied about the reasons why the UK carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq and that the current government has been involved in a series of corrupt activities concerning PFI, honours and arms deals. I just ask to be judged on what I post rather than being falsely labelled as a conspiracy theorist.

Though I'm viewed on this forum as being "anti-conspiracist" I agree with John and Steve etc that each case should be judged separately. Nixon did conspire to cover-up his administration's involvement in the Watergate break-in and various dirty trick against his opponents, towards the end of the last dictatorship in Brazil conservative elements in the military conspired to 1) bomb a large concert hall (RioCentro) and blame it on Leftists 2) steal the election for the Rio governorship from a leftist candidate. Not to mention that they conspired with the help and foreknowledge of the US government to overthrow the democracy elected federal, state and local governments in 1964, just the US conspired to overthrown democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile etc. The directors of Enron, WorldCom and various other corporations conspired to artificially inflate the stock value of their companies. The above examples are not in dispute. There are cases were the evidence for conspiracy is strong and there are others where the evidence isn't so strong but reasonable doubt exists.

There are also cases where the conspiracy theories are totally unfounded and the claims of theorists easily debunked. These types of theories do trend to attract support from people for whom belief in them probably does fill some psychological need.

How does one distinguish between reasonable conspiracies (the Kennedy assassination) and crackpot ones (the Moon landings were faked)? There is no clear answer to that question. For me one test is which have backing from experts in the appropriate fields; Holocaust denial, “chemtrails”, the Moon hoax, the WTC towers were felled with explosives, a missile hit the Pentagon and Wellstone’s plane was shot down with a ‘directed energy’ weapon are all theories that fail that test. In the case of the Kennedy assassination on the other hand there are forensic experts etc who say that official explanation doesn’t hold any water.

Since several conspiracies have been uncovered it is unreasonable to so close minded as to say that all conspiracy theories which haven’t been proven to a 110% certainty are unreasonable as crackpot ones.

[Michael Hogan]

Mike Tribe wrote:

....All I'm saying is that the banner at to top says this is a forum for teachers and educators and yet discussion has come to be dominated -- some would say unhealthily -- with what can only be seen as a tangental issue in education. Any teacher checking in to the forum for the first time would rapidly be given the impression that this was a forum dedicated to political conspiracies rather than to education in its broad sense. Many of them would be discouraged by this and not return......

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) wrote:

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

Andy Walker wrote:

I have also been interested by the attempts half way through the thread to differentiate between the 'lunatic' and the legitimate conspiracy theories. I would not presume to be able to make such a distinction but would advise those investigating "conspiracies" to proceed both with an appropriate respect for the academic discipline of history and a clear understanding of how the desire to project may vitiate the validity of what may appear to the conspiracist as self evidently sensible conclusions.

Gilbert Chesterton (1874-1936) wrote:

"Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously."

John Simkin wrote:

I have argued that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that the full story of Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal has never been told, that Tony Blair lied about the reasons why the UK carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq and that the current government has been involved in a series of corrupt activities concerning PFI, honours and arms deals. I just ask to be judged on what I post rather than being falsely labelled as a conspiracy theorist.

Antoinette Deshoulieres (1638-1694) wrote:

"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt."

Edited June 12, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Steve Rymer]

Conspiracies have been a part of human history since the dawn of man. The idea that all stopped at some indeterminant point in the last 100 years is piffle. There have been enough major conspiracies which have come to light in the last 50 years(Iran-contra, Gulf of Tonkin, Suez, Operation Northwoods etc.) and are now documented as such (even in the mainstream media) to suspect everything we are told about the true motivations of governments. I, for one, believe nothing that comes out of a politician's mouth (it saves disappointment later).

Why is it that every time a lie is shown to be a lie (usually years after the fact, because nobody questioned it at the time), we simply accept it as some trivial unconnected part of history and then blindly accept the next statement as if it came from the lips of Mother Theresa? We insist on viewing each deception in isolation and fail to regard each incident as a one in a long line of frauds imposed on the latest gullible generation of voters.

Our world runs on lies, always has, always will...

Also, if we stopped using the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' and instead used 'history revisonist', 'sceptic', or 'heretic' would that make it more acceptable on an education forum? It's a word game designed to marginalize dissent and encourage conformity - so too, words like sexist, racist, homophobe, anti-semite, nazi etc. when used in a discussion forum. They are designed to stifle debate before a word has been spoken. To me, a conspiracy theorist is just someone who does not believe everything they are told - what is so bad about that?

[Michael Hogan]

Good post Steve

[Guest]

To me, a conspiracy theorist is just someone who does not believe everything they are told - what is so bad about that?

Nothing.

Too often however conspiracy theorists are ironically quick to believe everything they hear just so long as it conflicts with the official version.

Being open minded is great just don't be so open minded that you let your brains fall out