Conspiracy Theories
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:38 pm
The phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used for years to denigrate anyone who challenges the preferred spin on events. A good essay on this issue was written by Dave McGowan and can be found on the the Lawful Path at
http://lawfulpath.com/ref/conspiracyTheory.shtml
Have you noticed there are certain "foundational issues" that nearly all Americans take for granted? Beliefs that seem to be the underpinning of everything else they believe?
Back in the 1990s there was a group in Michigan that specialized in the study of the foundational history of laws, and the factual history of events. Once a month on a Saturday, they rented a large auditorium at the college in Mt. Pleasant and invited speakers to present their research. The event usually drew an audience of between 300 and 500. I was a regular speaker, and it was a great learning experience for me.
On at least a few occasions, I presented information which I knew would be hard to swallow, because it would challenge commonly held foundational beliefs.
I developed a tactic of first addressing some other commonly held belief, and destroying it. Then, with my audience in a more accepting frame of mind, I would proceed to my real topic.
One of my favorite icebreakers was to ask how many people were sure that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. This never failed to draw out many true believers. It was then quite easy to destroy this belief by explaining the timeline of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. Funny how the thirteen years between the signing of the Declaration, and the ratification of the Constitution are seldom given much thought. Blame the government f(sh)ool system. But once it's correctly explained, it is easy to demonstrate that Washington was the tenth, not the first president.
See http://lawfulpath.com/ref/presidents/presidents.shtml
The reactions I've gotten from people who suddenly realize they've swallowed a big lie, and have only just awakened, are interesting. Anger, general confusion, sometimes physical anxiety.
It was also instructive for me. One time I asked for a show of hands as to how many people believed that the majority of news stories they saw on television, and read in the newspapers, were on the average, essentially factual as reported. Out of an audience of close to 500, I estimated over 90% raised their hands. I asked everyone to hold their hands up as they looked around the room, so they could see how many agreed.
Then I asked for a show of hands as to how many people had, at some time in their lives, been party to, or witness to an event which had made the news, and of which they had actual firsthand knowledge. Roughly half the group raised their hands. I asked them once again to keep their hands raised, while they looked around the room at the number of hands up.
Now I asked, "Those of you with your hands up, please keep them raised only IF you believe that the news story was factually correct, according to your own firsthand knowledge. Everyone who believes the story of which they had firsthand knowledge was NOT correctly reported, please put your hands down."
More than two hundred hands had been raised, and when they came down, only three remained. Again, I asked them to look around the room.
"Here's something you need to think about," I told them. "All this time, you've probably thought it was a fluke that the one or two events of which you had firsthand knowledge were not correctly and factually reported. What do you think now?"
I let the crowd murmer amongst themselves for about a minute, while I pretended to shuffle my notes. Then I said, "I'd like to do one more survey, if I may. Given what you've all just seen, may I have a show of hands once more? Which of you STILL believe the majority of news stories you see on television, and read in the newspapers, are on the average, essentially factual as reported?"
This time, only about 10% raised their hands, and those, as they looked around the room, quickly and nervously put them down.
A few years ago I got a taste of my own medicine, when I read Dave McGowan's online series of essays called Wagging the Moondoggie.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/
This series deals with the American space program in general, and the Apollo flights in particular. Some of Dave's language is a little rough, but it deals in facts, not conspiracies.
Before I read this, I was one of those people who refused to believe or even listen to any suggestion the moon landings might have been faked. The "unquestionable truth" of the moon landings was one of my foundational beliefs. After reading it, I realized it is not even possible to engage in a realistic debate on the issue. The moon landings were simply not possible.
If the "truth" of the moon landings is also one of your foundational beliefs, I encourage you to read Dave's essays on the subject. You might be surprised at what you're no longer willing or able to believe, given a few unbiased facts.
http://lawfulpath.com/ref/conspiracyTheory.shtml
Have you noticed there are certain "foundational issues" that nearly all Americans take for granted? Beliefs that seem to be the underpinning of everything else they believe?
Back in the 1990s there was a group in Michigan that specialized in the study of the foundational history of laws, and the factual history of events. Once a month on a Saturday, they rented a large auditorium at the college in Mt. Pleasant and invited speakers to present their research. The event usually drew an audience of between 300 and 500. I was a regular speaker, and it was a great learning experience for me.
On at least a few occasions, I presented information which I knew would be hard to swallow, because it would challenge commonly held foundational beliefs.
I developed a tactic of first addressing some other commonly held belief, and destroying it. Then, with my audience in a more accepting frame of mind, I would proceed to my real topic.
One of my favorite icebreakers was to ask how many people were sure that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. This never failed to draw out many true believers. It was then quite easy to destroy this belief by explaining the timeline of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. Funny how the thirteen years between the signing of the Declaration, and the ratification of the Constitution are seldom given much thought. Blame the government f(sh)ool system. But once it's correctly explained, it is easy to demonstrate that Washington was the tenth, not the first president.
See http://lawfulpath.com/ref/presidents/presidents.shtml
The reactions I've gotten from people who suddenly realize they've swallowed a big lie, and have only just awakened, are interesting. Anger, general confusion, sometimes physical anxiety.
It was also instructive for me. One time I asked for a show of hands as to how many people believed that the majority of news stories they saw on television, and read in the newspapers, were on the average, essentially factual as reported. Out of an audience of close to 500, I estimated over 90% raised their hands. I asked everyone to hold their hands up as they looked around the room, so they could see how many agreed.
Then I asked for a show of hands as to how many people had, at some time in their lives, been party to, or witness to an event which had made the news, and of which they had actual firsthand knowledge. Roughly half the group raised their hands. I asked them once again to keep their hands raised, while they looked around the room at the number of hands up.
Now I asked, "Those of you with your hands up, please keep them raised only IF you believe that the news story was factually correct, according to your own firsthand knowledge. Everyone who believes the story of which they had firsthand knowledge was NOT correctly reported, please put your hands down."
More than two hundred hands had been raised, and when they came down, only three remained. Again, I asked them to look around the room.
"Here's something you need to think about," I told them. "All this time, you've probably thought it was a fluke that the one or two events of which you had firsthand knowledge were not correctly and factually reported. What do you think now?"
I let the crowd murmer amongst themselves for about a minute, while I pretended to shuffle my notes. Then I said, "I'd like to do one more survey, if I may. Given what you've all just seen, may I have a show of hands once more? Which of you STILL believe the majority of news stories you see on television, and read in the newspapers, are on the average, essentially factual as reported?"
This time, only about 10% raised their hands, and those, as they looked around the room, quickly and nervously put them down.
A few years ago I got a taste of my own medicine, when I read Dave McGowan's online series of essays called Wagging the Moondoggie.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/
This series deals with the American space program in general, and the Apollo flights in particular. Some of Dave's language is a little rough, but it deals in facts, not conspiracies.
Before I read this, I was one of those people who refused to believe or even listen to any suggestion the moon landings might have been faked. The "unquestionable truth" of the moon landings was one of my foundational beliefs. After reading it, I realized it is not even possible to engage in a realistic debate on the issue. The moon landings were simply not possible.
If the "truth" of the moon landings is also one of your foundational beliefs, I encourage you to read Dave's essays on the subject. You might be surprised at what you're no longer willing or able to believe, given a few unbiased facts.