Anatomy of a Conspiracy Theory

Examples of intellectual virtues are honesty and courage. Being intellectually honest means making a fair appraisal of the evidence at hand, dedicating effort to reach valid conclusions, admitting personal biases that affect beliefs, and seeking to override or reduce those biases. In an intellectual context, courage involves, among other things, being willing to take a minority position when the evidence points in that direction. It also means investigating personally held beliefs with rigor.

Knowledge is true belief that is reached or acquired through an act of virtue.

©James Beilby and David K. Clark, (Norcross, GA: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 2000).

“Conspiracy Theory”. The phrase “conspiracy theory” has become an umbrella term that encompasses such a variety of ideas that the only quality left to bind them together is a subversive quality to the information presented. Under the umbrella of “conspiracy theory” a vast array of topics have been evaluated both popularly (see the X-Files) and academically (see SETI, or even the Jesus seminar, who would embrace Da Vinci Code notions of Christ).

But a serious thinker has to ask the question, what constitutes a conspiracy theory? I posit this: That power of information about something significant is in the hands of individuals who believe that it is necessary to withhold said information, for whatever reason, or even sew misinformation, in order to protect interests of which only they are fully aware. This definition encompasses those who believe the government is covering up the existence of aliens and those who believe the Christian church is covering up the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene.

It is largely because such a variety of divergent topics are categorized as “conspiracy theory”, that truth can be marginalized under the heading of “conspiracy theory” and kept from rational, truth-seeking individuals. It is a double bind. The emotionally mature, rational mind rejects the notion of special knowledge or “conspiracy theory” as it well should in most instances. Special knowledge most often is a jewel prized by those who reject reason for inclusiveness, the right or ability to belong to something elite or more aware. Simply, to be special.

But there is a great danger in this seemingly rational thought process, and here I will wax more specific: That by rejecting the notion that aliens landed at Roswell, NM as conspiracy theory, that we thereby reject the notion that the federal reserve is intentionally bankrupting America because it is also a conspiracy theory. The danger is that in so doing, we are throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater: Overlooking something that may be true because it is classified under a heading we reject outright.

So the question becomes, is it reasonable or rational to reject outright the notion that there is “power of information about something significant in the hands of individuals who believe that it is necessary to withhold said information, for whatever reason, or even sew misinformation, in order to protect interests of which only they are fully aware"?

II.

"...you take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes..." Morpheus in "The Matrix"

We paint a pretty picture of reality for our children. Rightly so, because it is from the security of a loving and safe home that children are able to emerge into adulthood not only physically, but spiritually, emotionally and rationally mature. If we do things right, we strive to create an environment in our children's minds that will allow them to discover the world for themselves with as little residual childhood baggage as possible.

But most of us discover very quickly as adults that the world is not as rosy a place as it seemed in childhood to be. We find out, for example, that people in positions of power sometimes abuse their power. We are confronted almost constantly with this reality in every sphere of our lives. We go to work for bosses that are petty and overbearing. We are passed over for promotions that are awarded to someone else based on croney-ism or sex appeal. We read in the paper that our city council members were bribed to pass something that benefits few and harms many. We watch 48 hours or Dateline and discover that people are imprisoned when overzealous prosecutors withhold critical information from trial in order to win a case without regard for the individual prosecuted. We watch movies based on actual events, like "Serpico", about our police forces in major metropolitan areas accepting bribes. We learn that our president is bugging hotel rooms.

We accept these conspiracies as reality presumably because they are reported on by the main stream media. We speculate, perhaps, on what percentage of those things done in the dark are ever exposed to the light. Bad guys get away with it for a while, but they eventually get their comeuppance, we may conclude. Or we may conclude that those with more will always attempt to oppress those with less, in order to maintain their advantage. Regardless, almost every adult believes that some degree of conspiracy is at work in our lives.

The question really is, "how deep does the rabbit hole go?" In order to exercise corrupt authority, one must have authority over something. If we accept that those in positions of authority are sometimes corrupt, we must ask ourselves where it ends. The founders of our Constitution understoood this principal, and so created a system that would disperse authority throughout a range of individuals and institutions. It is purposefully a difficult system to corrupt. Any attempt to destroy it would require infiltrating and overwhelming it. One needs a corrupt executive, working in conjunction with a corrupt legislative branch, appointing corrupt judges (that serve for life in the Supreme Court, another attempt by our forefathers to protect us by ensuring that no single executive could imbalance the court system). It would take a great deal of time to coordinate such an effort. A conspiracy of this magnitude would require almost unimaginable secrecy. The media would have to be complicit, otherwise a good investigative journalist would bring it into the light. The populace would have to be carefully controlled and kept unaware.

Taken in theory, it seems unrealistic. But it is not only rationally possible, it's hapenned before, in Nazi Germany. It becomes a question of evidence. Is there evidence that the corruption we encounter in our daily lives goes all the way to the bottom of the rabbit hole. Some people say yes, some no. The question each person reading this must consider is whether or not it is worth investigating.

Something to Think About

How many people have ever thought about the profound differences between the foundational members of congress, the judiciary and the executive branches of the United States government and the members of those bodies today? Certainly the world has changed a great deal since the end of the 18th Century, changed more probably in that time frame, at least technologically, than in any time frame before. But have the systems by which masses of people are governed changed? Should they change?

We have democrats and republicans. Early American parties were the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton) and the Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson). Bipartisan politics is largely built into our system of government and seems to be essentially unchanged. But what is interesting to consider is how a modern statesman compares and contrasts to an early American statesman in terms of political philosophy.

The mindset of the early American statesman was largely anti-government. Remember that these individuals were involved in accusing the imperial British government of tyranny and asserting their God given right to self governance. There is of course the popular post-modern historical interpretations of there actions as wholly self-motivated based on there desire to protect their own wealth from British imperial taxation. Like so much modern historiography, this is simply an attempt to discredit the founding fathers characters in order to remove them from their traditional pedestal in American history. In reality, these men were capitalists in their economic philosophy, guided by the writings of Adam Smith. It is a tenet of free market capitalism that the pursuit of individual advantage can produce a successful economic system.

Briefly, that is, that by producing a good or service, the individual entrepreneur will seek to provide the best product or service for the best price available, to the benefit of society, while actually being personally motivated to sell more products or services and improve personal wealth. Modern historical reinterpretations that seek to indict the founding fathers based on the "immorality" of their attempts to safeguard their personal wealth are ridiculous.

So these men, by and large, were not motivated by greed, but were firm believers in capitalism. They believed, quite simply, that every individual (except slaves, but that is an entirely different blog) has been created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights. Essentially, individuals had the right to live there lives however they chose so long as they didn't choose to live in a way that violated anyone else's right to do the same. They believed that government is inherently corrupt and that government is a necessary evil, whose primary function should be to protect the rights granted by God to the individuals governed. (I'll take up later the notion that government is inherently corrupt and why.)

The Constitution of the United States of America was produced with this paradox in mind: That government must exist to protect the individual liberties of those governed, and that those governed must be capable of protecting themselves against the corruption inherent in government.

Is this the mindset of the modern statesman? Do our modern representatives share similar ideals, or more interestingly, do they have any ideals at all? Or are they afloat in a sea whose motions are determined by the gravity of corporate lobbying interests? Who can know the answers to these questions.

But here is something we must know: That it is the occupation of these individuals, first and foremost, to protect the individual rights promised in the Constitution and ensure that they are never violated. That document is the skeleton upon which a dynamic and successful country was built. We simply cannot allow it to be taken away from us. We must learn what it says. We must monitor our representatives in government to ensure that our Constitution is being preserved.

Where Were You When the World Changed

Undeniably, there are a variety of motives that compel a person to predict doom on the horizon. There are those who opposed Paulson's bailout plan who will derive great satisfaction from being right if it fails utterly, who will relish the opportunity to say "I told you so."

I am not amongst them.

The votes have been cast, the opportunity to debate the merit of the plan is over. While I stop shy of throwing my support behind the bill, while I still believe wholeheartedly and with many others that it was a potentially devastating misstep in the midst of troubled times, more than any other time in my life, I sincerely hope now that I have been wrong.

For many Americans like myself, the events of this day sit heavily on the soul. I sincerely pray that we have all been wrong. But if not, I will not be persuaded that capitalism is inherently flawed and cannot, as an economic system, be saved. I will continue to fight for what I believe to be the vision of the forefathers of this nation. It is a system of governance I believe to be the best available and probably conceivable, at least thus far in human history. We must struggle to preserve the American Constitution. We must refuse to cede the rights and responsibilities entrusted to us, under any circumstances, even at the cost of personal suffering. I have great confidence in the American people and will not lose hope.

Having said that, I conclude my thoughts on this historic day with a salute to House Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California. It has been reported that as many as 90% of Americans were opposed to this bailout plan. Mr. Sherman unabashedly demanded, on behalf of the American people, complete disclosure of the events taking place on Capitol Hill. Rep. Sherman had the courage to not only echo popular sentiment in his vote, but to go a step further and loudly proclaim his reservations about both the bill itself, and the methods used to intimidate congress people into denying their convictions and voting yea.

Here is his analysis of the dangers and shortcomings of this bill. It is still worth every second of time spent reading and understanding it, because in the coming months, we will know for sure whether he, or the present administration was correct in their assessment of the situation.

http://bradsherman.house.gov/081001comprehensive_article.pdf

If his assessment proves to be true, as so many of us expect, let us honor him in the future by more carefully considering his recommendations and advice surrounding this issue. The next link is a video link to his statement before the house that congressman were threatened that Martial law would ensue if the plan was not passed. He later denied the opportunity on a radio interview with Alex Jones to give the names of those who had made such threats, but I, personally, do not blame him. Rep. Sherman's neck was already enough exposed by his statements in the preceding weeks.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281553-102&clipStart=10879&clipStop=11779&showVid=true

While this list is incomplete, let me also mention the work of Marcy Kaptur, Democratic Representative from Ohio, and Ron Paul, Republican Representative from Texas. These individuals and others represented the voice of the American public in their statements and votes regarding this issue. They deserve re-election and we deserve more like them.

Polticians and Media Personalities Betray their Lack of Respect for the American People

No event in my lifetime has so thoroughly exposed the view of the politicians in Washington and the American media that the American people are idiots. Most Americans are aware (I hope) that what politicians and media personalities call "spin" can be most accurately defined as an attempt to interpret information on our behalves; in other words, to do our thinking for us. But the debate between the American people and their representatives in congress surrounding the proposed bailout plan (and don't let anyone convince you that it deserves a different title, that is one of the ways media and politicians have been most condescending) has exposed more than any other event, the view that the elitists hold: We know what's good for you because we are smarter than you are.

Well guess what? You were just smart enough to run our economy into the ground. We know it, and God help us all if we fall for it again because of temporary discomfort. And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what this bill proposes, that we fall for it all over again.

Stephen Pearlstein is a Pulitzer-Prize winning business columnist for the Washington Post. This is what he wrote in an article Sept. 30th, 2008 entitled "They Just Don't Get It":

Americans fail to understand that they are facing the real prospect of a decade of little or no economic growth because of the bursting of a credit bubble that they helped create and that now threatens to bring down the global financial system.

That is how he sums up the massive public outcry over Paulson's bailout proposal. We just don't understand. Let's set aside momentarily the notion that it is the responsibility of Mr. Pearlstein and other media, and our elected representatives to make us understand prior to asserting that we need to pass emergency legislation that drastically changes the landscape our economic system. Are we to believe that no one in government, media, or the banks themselves saw this coming with sufficient time to properly debate rescue options prior to a systemic meltdown? Mr. Pearlstein goes on to say:

Politicians worry less about preventing a financial meltdown than about ideology, partisan posturing and teaching people a lesson. Financiers have yet to own up publicly to their own greed, arrogance and incompetence. And leaders of foreign governments still think that this is an American problem and that they have no need to mount similar rescue efforts in their own countries.

In the coming weeks and months, all of these people will come to understand how deep the hole really is and how we're all in it together.

Polticians, then, are too selfishly motivated to do what's best for the American people. Financiers are guilty of "greed, arrogance, and incompetence". And foreign governments are presumably too stupid to recognize the danger that they are in. Presumably the only people who were intelligent and insightful enough to recognize the importance of this bill were the ones that proposed it. And of course Mr. Pearlstein. (And those 190 economists who agreed with the American people, I'd love to know into which category they would fall.)

Interestingly, Mr. Pearlstein approaches the truth of the situation in his conclusion:

In better times, the public might have put aside its reluctance in response to the strong and unified recommendation of political and business leaders. But it is a measure of how little trust remains in both Washington and Wall Street that voters are willing to risk a serious hit to their wealth and income rather than follow their lead.

Will Hutton, a british columnist, editor in chief for The Observer in London and governor of the London School of Economics put it even better in an article entitled "I've Watched the Economy for Thirty Years. Now I'm Truly Scared.":

This is not the end of capitalism, as some wildly claim; there is no intellectual, social or political challenge to a market system based on respect for private property rights, even by the Chinese Communist party. Rather, it is a crisis of a particular capitalism that has set aside respect for trust, integrity and fairness as fuddy-duddy obstacles to 'wealth generation'. What we are relearning is that without trust and fairness, capitalism risks its own sustainability, even while it unleashes forces that undermine those self-same values. London's money markets froze because of a trust collapse; banks simply don't believe each other when they say their businesses are sound and will not default on their obligations. Trust matters.

Is it so difficult, then, for our politicians and our media personalities to understand that this breakdown in trust extends all the way down to "Main Street." What reasonable human being would trust those same financiers who "have yet to own up publicly to their own greed, arrogance and incompetence" to responsibly use our tax money to fix the problem in a way that prioritizes those who are paying for it, the american people?

We may need to brush up on our understanding of global economics. (Consequently, not any moreso than the politicians and media types themselves.) But the truth is not that we "Just Don't Get It."

It is Mr. Pearlstein, the media he represents, and our elected representatives in national government that don't get it. We demand real change before we commit our already overtaxed populice to bailing out the bankers.

jadamkraft.blogspot.com

E-Mail Address

jadamkraft@yahoo.com