You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #60: How 'Conspiracy Kooks' Became More Credible Than the White House [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #43
60. How 'Conspiracy Kooks' Became More Credible Than the White House
You're welcome, anarchy1999! And thank you very much for understanding why I give a damn, DU Friend. We are Free Men and Women -- in American and throughout much of the world. Working together, we will spread the thing the BFEE fears most -- The Truth. And when America know the true score, we will not become Bush's Untermenschen.

Hey! Didjahearabout how well Maureen Farrell sums things up?

How 'Conspiracy Kooks' Became
More Credible Than the White House

by Maureen Farrell


"In the next 5 to 10 years,
we are all going to live in a global version
of Nazi Germany."
- David Icke

"Basically, all the conspiracy theories about
secret societies wanting
to take over the world are wrong."
- Daniel Pipes

Anyone who's ever tuned into the History Channel's "Secret Societies" recognizes these quotes from its opening segment. As part of the "History's Mysteries" series, "Secret Societies" is a fun, often sensational journey inside the world of would-be cabals and plots for world domination. Featuring volleyed testimony from various experts, the program mixes factual information and historical trivia with open speculation on the role secret societies may have played in these events. "Do shadowy and clandestine groups really rule the world?" host Arthur Kent campily inquires, before hinting at hidden subtext behind historical moments.

During the 1980 presidential campaign, for example, the History Channel reports that Ronald Reagan repeatedly expressed a distrust of secret societies and promised that Skull and Bonesman, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and Trilateral Commission alumni George Bush would not be offered a position in his administration. Yet during the Republican Convention, Reagan broke tradition by making a late-night dash from his hotel room to the convention floor and declaring George Bush his running mate. The Iran hostage situation was miraculously resolved the day Reagan was sworn in.

Ever since Prescott Bush was penalized for trading with the Nazis during World War II and the words "George Bush of the CIA" surfaced on a 1963 FBI report on the JFK assassination, the Bush family has been tied to speculation. And certainly, October Surprises and Iran/Contra add to the intrigue while links between the Bushes and the Hinkleys and Bushes and bin Ladens have not gone unnoticed. Regardless how entertaining this speculation may be, however, reasonable people have historically heard the word "conspiracy" and rejected theories outright -- even those theories that later proved to be true. And given a choice between the conspiracy theorists and debunkers, they've tended to take the road less kooky.

In the History Channel-extracted exchange above, for example, CFR member Daniel Pipes clearly asserts the more sensible view. Serving on three editorial boards and working on four presidential campaigns, this author of CONSPIRACY: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From once headed the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which is funded, in large part, by conspiracy-monger Richard Mellon Scaife. Pipes is also known for his latest endeavor, Campus Watch, (http// ) wherein he actively encourages "the paranoid style" by targeting professors who don't tow his politically correct line. Monitoring Middle East Studies professors, Pipes' group scours educators' work for bias and enlists students and academics who are "interested in promoting American interests on campus" to spy and tattle. A professor who is concerned about Dick Cheney's $73 million in business transactions with Iraq (even as sanctions continued to kill 5,000 Iraqi children monthly), for example, might be wise to keep his mouth shut, else possibly be listed on Pipes' website and become besieged with hate mail and death threats. What was Pipes saying about paranoia, again?

Now that debunkers like Pipes have been linked to conspiracies to squelch dissent and Bush's official national security policy openly expresses a desire for dominance and control, is it any wonder conspiracy theories thrive? From the 2000 election to unanswered Sept. 11 questions to outright fabrications over Iraq, the president has repeatedly proven that he will lie shamelessly in order to garner more power for himself and his cronies. The shroud of secrecy under which the administration operates only serves to fuel speculation, while last minute GOP sneakiness, like the maneuvers that ballooned the 32 page Homeland Security Bill to nearly 500 pages virtually overnight, prove once again whose side theses folks are on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC