Thank you for an interesting entertaining article. I'm looking forward to reading Jonathan Kay's book (novel?). I've been an armchair theorist for around 15 years now.
The idea of a "conspiracy theorist underground" is, in and of itself, an amusing conspiracy theory. It implies shadowy cabals, clandestine meetings, and secret handshakes.
On its face, the idea is patently absurd. By our very nature, we want publicity. We want people to think about our ideas. We want the validation of the unlikely event that some pet theory turns out to be correct.
Look at the sources you mentioned: emails, RSS feeds, voice mails, facebook groups. All pretty much totally public and visible. Kay missed quite a few, but we conspiracy theorists live in an obvious spiderweb world. Each node is a desperate little "Look at me! I'm over here!" plea for attention.
There are probably as many different types of conspiracy theorists (and reasons that we believe the things we do) as there are conspiracy theorists. It would take a book to explore even the few I know about.
There really seems to be just one common trait that almost all of us share: a mistrust of authority. Everyone knows politicians (and, thus, the government) lie. Elected officials are practically professional liars: their jobs depend on telling voters what we want to hear.
We also all know that the mainstream media deceives us. Whether it's by mistake, slant, omission, cover up, or just outright lie.
Every American (except the fools who believe *their* news source is fair, balanced, pristinely truthful, and infallible) realizes those two facts. Conspiracy theorists just take those facts and run with them.
Most of us tend to wind up believing that the MSM no longer represents the "free press". That you've turned into the propaganda arm of the gover-business interests that *really* make all the decisions these days. That's why we wind up turning to alternative sources that are questionable at best.
Take your article, as an example. It's full of brainwashing messages. I don't have it in front of me as I write this, so I'm sure I'll get the quotes wrong (this is one of the techniques we theorists use to delude ourselves), but I'll try to convey the tone of what I perceived (which, ultimately, is what counts in any form of communication).
Ridicule is obvious: "You may laugh at such silliness, but..." If you can make people laugh at some idea, you make that idea unthinkable.
Conflation isn't necessarily a brainwashing technique per se, but it is a logical fallacy used by brainwashers. "Some people believe President Obama was not born in the US. Some people have questions about the official story on 9/11. Some people believe both. Therefore, the 911 truthers are obviously as stupid as the birthers." This technique will pretty much inevitably gore someone's ox, so now they'll decide the UTW's an active participant in making sure people don't learn the truth about *their* pet theory.
"Us vs Them" is the most fundamental example: The idea of "Look at these idiots! How can they possibly believe such a thing, which is absurd? You don't want to be like *them* do you?"
Analysis: I doubt anyone would believe that you know the "real" story behind the JFK assassination. But, by publishing such a biased column, the UTW places itself squarely on the side of "them" with everyone who questions any "official story" on the side of "us".
And there's a breakdown of one way something totally innocent gets twisted into 'evidence' for a sinister conspiracy.
There's a *lot* more to it than that, of course. Maybe I'll write that book after all. If it ever gets published, I'll give you full credit and send you a copy gratis.
Part of the problem with a "organizing" a group of freedom-lovers is that we all have our own agendas. That's one reason we never seem to be able to compete with the big police state parties who are willing to sacrifice principles for expediency.
I agree with some of your "-non negtioible [sic] principles" and disagree with others. I think the idea of "Illegal Aliens" is ridiculous...unless you're 100% pure-blood Native American, you're an illegal alien. But the federal government's only responsibility/authority is protecting our borders. Once they're inside the country, it should be up to the individual states to decide how to handle them.
I can see English-only requirements in, say, government and public schools (then again, I had a couple of years of French in high school...should we get rid of foreign language programs completely? Where do you draw the line? These sorts of subtle details are the reason our legal system is such a complicated mess...ham-handed Congressmen wrote ill-conceived "feel-good" laws, then had to amend them over and over as exceptions and details floated to the surface). But I really don't think that's something the federal government should worry about. That's exactly the kind of intrusive interference in our day-to-day lives that I'm trying to end.
You feel free to encourage "Traditional Family Values" (whatever you think they are). Just don't try to force them on me (or anyone else). Government (at any level, much less Federal) has absolutely no business interfering in marriage...which is a strictly religious matter protected by the First Amendment.
Maybe we are a Christian Nation, but we have plenty of non-Christians who couldn't care less about your (or my) beliefs. Yet again: the First Amendment should protect the minorities from the majorities who want to code their religious beliefs into law and force them on everyone else. Instead, do that on your own time, by convincing them that your belief system's better than theirs.
I'm not a "big-wig" in the Tea Party movement. I'm just an ordinary person who cares about freedom and doesn't have enough time or money to make any difference by myself. Which, really, makes me part of the heart and soul of the Tea Party.
I happened to be around at the beginning, and, Mr. Rall, you're almost precisely correct. True Tea Partiers welcome *everyone* who cares about freedom. We don't care about political parties, race, religion, or any of the other millions of artificial differences The Powers That Be use to blind us to the shell game they're using to destroy everything that's great about this country.
When we started, we knew one of the major parties would try to co-opt what we've built. At the time, the Democrats seemed more likely...the fires were kindled by President Bush's wars of foreign aggression, his bail-outs, the "Patriot" Act, etc.
Maybe some of the newer arrivals believe the nonsense that we have anything at all in common with neo-cons like Sarah Palin or the "National Tea Party Convention." We do not.
The fact that they're trying so hard gives us hope that we're actually on the verge of being able to accomplish something.
Why are you printing that drivel in Rant & Rall? The guy's a flaming Communist idiot. You're selling the lie that we've been living in something that resembles a free-market economy.
I expect that nonsense from sources like MSNBC and FOX news. That lie is why their advertisers pay them. But, come on, you're a small business. I really expect at least *some* business acumen from you.
Maybe I give you too much credit.
Here's the truth of the matter: Communism [while nice in theory] does not work in any sizable group. We've been practicing it since about 1933, and it's driven our country to its knees.
The people who proclaim "We need more government control!" are perfect exhibits of that famous [and dubious] definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
This country was founded on the idea that personal property, and the right to the fruits of your labor, are important. I know it's quaint, but some really smart people thought it had merit, once upon a time.
Rall's `Rants` would make sense in Seattle's "The Stranger." They really don't belong in the UT. Tulsans still (mostly) have a vague degree of common sense, self-reliance, and independence.
I'm really not one of those nut-cases who think I could pull off being an island...especially in the middle of a city. I know I'm totally reliant on the good-will of my neighbors and the trucking companies who bring in my TV dinners.
I have a lot more faith that they'll keep supplying me if I give them what they want (i.e. being a good neighbor and paying them) than if I have to rely on some Central Planning Committee to take care of details like that for me.
I'd have addressed this as a response to Rall's column, but you seem to have [wisely?] kept his gibberish off-line.
Almost-congratulations on this. Much more balanced and realistic than any of the drivel Michael Bates spews about conservatism.
And then we get to the end and you prove that you've been drinking the kool-aid after all.
You wrote that "voters aren't happy to let the marketplace work its magic if the world is falling apart." I may be picking nits since you specifically did not mention the *free* market, but you certainly implied. We haven't had anything resembling a free market...well, ever, really, but it's been really blatant for decades now.
"Our" government has been subsidizing huge corporations, erecting Byzantine regulations to keep anyone new from competing, and passing laws written by the corporations' lobbyists specifically for those corporations' benefit. Oh, and let's not forget the central banker types who control the Federal Reserve. You know, the ones we trusted to plan and control the market, trying to even out the market's natural boom/bust cycle. The ones who have admitted they caused the Depression and were the first ones to get bailed out.
That's the playing field that all those faux "laissez-faire" types were crowing about. It should be obvious that "de-regulating" that sort of thing will lead to disaster. But it has nothing to do with a free market.
To go back to your analogy, "our" government might be like a fire fighter. But it's one who's spent the last 40-ish years charging us to pile brush up next to our homes and soak it/them in lighter fluid.
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not have that kind of firefighter around.
This is, arguably, the worst form of tyranny: forcing people to do something they don't want because you believe it's in their best interest.
Here's the way things are supposed to work: if you're convinced this is for the best, open your own smoke-free music venue/bar. If you manage to make the bar fun enough to attract customers who will have to smoke outside, or enough people are against smoking in bars, you'll have a successful business, and people who don't like smoky bars will have another option.
It's called a free market. The people who want to regulate every aspect of our lives should do some research into this radical concept.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Posted by: jashley
6 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Conspiracy Theories
The idea of a "conspiracy theorist underground" is, in and of itself, an amusing conspiracy theory. It implies shadowy cabals, clandestine meetings, and secret handshakes.
On its face, the idea is patently absurd. By our very nature, we want publicity. We want people to think about our ideas. We want the validation of the unlikely event that some pet theory turns out to be correct.
Look at the sources you mentioned: emails, RSS feeds, voice mails, facebook groups. All pretty much totally public and visible. Kay missed quite a few, but we conspiracy theorists live in an obvious spiderweb world. Each node is a desperate little "Look at me! I'm over here!" plea for attention.
There are probably as many different types of conspiracy theorists (and reasons that we believe the things we do) as there are conspiracy theorists. It would take a book to explore even the few I know about.
There really seems to be just one common trait that almost all of us share: a mistrust of authority. Everyone knows politicians (and, thus, the government) lie. Elected officials are practically professional liars: their jobs depend on telling voters what we want to hear.
We also all know that the mainstream media deceives us. Whether it's by mistake, slant, omission, cover up, or just outright lie.
Every American (except the fools who believe *their* news source is fair, balanced, pristinely truthful, and infallible) realizes those two facts. Conspiracy theorists just take those facts and run with them.
Most of us tend to wind up believing that the MSM no longer represents the "free press". That you've turned into the propaganda arm of the gover-business interests that *really* make all the decisions these days. That's why we wind up turning to alternative sources that are questionable at best.
Take your article, as an example. It's full of brainwashing messages. I don't have it in front of me as I write this, so I'm sure I'll get the quotes wrong (this is one of the techniques we theorists use to delude ourselves), but I'll try to convey the tone of what I perceived (which, ultimately, is what counts in any form of communication).
Ridicule is obvious: "You may laugh at such silliness, but..." If you can make people laugh at some idea, you make that idea unthinkable.
Conflation isn't necessarily a brainwashing technique per se, but it is a logical fallacy used by brainwashers. "Some people believe President Obama was not born in the US. Some people have questions about the official story on 9/11. Some people believe both. Therefore, the 911 truthers are obviously as stupid as the birthers." This technique will pretty much inevitably gore someone's ox, so now they'll decide the UTW's an active participant in making sure people don't learn the truth about *their* pet theory.
"Us vs Them" is the most fundamental example: The idea of "Look at these idiots! How can they possibly believe such a thing, which is absurd? You don't want to be like *them* do you?"
Analysis: I doubt anyone would believe that you know the "real" story behind the JFK assassination. But, by publishing such a biased column, the UTW places itself squarely on the side of "them" with everyone who questions any "official story" on the side of "us".
And there's a breakdown of one way something totally innocent gets twisted into 'evidence' for a sinister conspiracy.
There's a *lot* more to it than that, of course. Maybe I'll write that book after all. If it ever gets published, I'll give you full credit and send you a copy gratis.
Re: Hey, Tea Partiers: You're Leftists!
Part of the problem with a "organizing" a group of freedom-lovers is that we all have our own agendas. That's one reason we never seem to be able to compete with the big police state parties who are willing to sacrifice principles for expediency.
I agree with some of your "-non negtioible [sic] principles" and disagree with others. I think the idea of "Illegal Aliens" is ridiculous...unless you're 100% pure-blood Native American, you're an illegal alien. But the federal government's only responsibility/authority is protecting our borders. Once they're inside the country, it should be up to the individual states to decide how to handle them.
I can see English-only requirements in, say, government and public schools (then again, I had a couple of years of French in high school...should we get rid of foreign language programs completely? Where do you draw the line? These sorts of subtle details are the reason our legal system is such a complicated mess...ham-handed Congressmen wrote ill-conceived "feel-good" laws, then had to amend them over and over as exceptions and details floated to the surface). But I really don't think that's something the federal government should worry about. That's exactly the kind of intrusive interference in our day-to-day lives that I'm trying to end.
You feel free to encourage "Traditional Family Values" (whatever you think they are). Just don't try to force them on me (or anyone else). Government (at any level, much less Federal) has absolutely no business interfering in marriage...which is a strictly religious matter protected by the First Amendment.
Maybe we are a Christian Nation, but we have plenty of non-Christians who couldn't care less about your (or my) beliefs. Yet again: the First Amendment should protect the minorities from the majorities who want to code their religious beliefs into law and force them on everyone else. Instead, do that on your own time, by convincing them that your belief system's better than theirs.
Re: Hey, Tea Partiers: You're Leftists!
I happened to be around at the beginning, and, Mr. Rall, you're almost precisely correct. True Tea Partiers welcome *everyone* who cares about freedom. We don't care about political parties, race, religion, or any of the other millions of artificial differences The Powers That Be use to blind us to the shell game they're using to destroy everything that's great about this country.
When we started, we knew one of the major parties would try to co-opt what we've built. At the time, the Democrats seemed more likely...the fires were kindled by President Bush's wars of foreign aggression, his bail-outs, the "Patriot" Act, etc.
Maybe some of the newer arrivals believe the nonsense that we have anything at all in common with neo-cons like Sarah Palin or the "National Tea Party Convention." We do not.
The fact that they're trying so hard gives us hope that we're actually on the verge of being able to accomplish something.
Re: Are You Pissed Off? Tell us about it.
I expect that nonsense from sources like MSNBC and FOX news. That lie is why their advertisers pay them. But, come on, you're a small business. I really expect at least *some* business acumen from you.
Maybe I give you too much credit.
Here's the truth of the matter: Communism [while nice in theory] does not work in any sizable group. We've been practicing it since about 1933, and it's driven our country to its knees.
The people who proclaim "We need more government control!" are perfect exhibits of that famous [and dubious] definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
This country was founded on the idea that personal property, and the right to the fruits of your labor, are important. I know it's quaint, but some really smart people thought it had merit, once upon a time.
Rall's `Rants` would make sense in Seattle's "The Stranger." They really don't belong in the UT. Tulsans still (mostly) have a vague degree of common sense, self-reliance, and independence.
I'm really not one of those nut-cases who think I could pull off being an island...especially in the middle of a city. I know I'm totally reliant on the good-will of my neighbors and the trucking companies who bring in my TV dinners.
I have a lot more faith that they'll keep supplying me if I give them what they want (i.e. being a good neighbor and paying them) than if I have to rely on some Central Planning Committee to take care of details like that for me.
I'd have addressed this as a response to Rall's column, but you seem to have [wisely?] kept his gibberish off-line.
Re: Consciousness of a Conservative
And then we get to the end and you prove that you've been drinking the kool-aid after all.
You wrote that "voters aren't happy to let the marketplace work its magic if the world is falling apart." I may be picking nits since you specifically did not mention the *free* market, but you certainly implied. We haven't had anything resembling a free market...well, ever, really, but it's been really blatant for decades now.
"Our" government has been subsidizing huge corporations, erecting Byzantine regulations to keep anyone new from competing, and passing laws written by the corporations' lobbyists specifically for those corporations' benefit. Oh, and let's not forget the central banker types who control the Federal Reserve. You know, the ones we trusted to plan and control the market, trying to even out the market's natural boom/bust cycle. The ones who have admitted they caused the Depression and were the first ones to get bailed out.
That's the playing field that all those faux "laissez-faire" types were crowing about. It should be obvious that "de-regulating" that sort of thing will lead to disaster. But it has nothing to do with a free market.
To go back to your analogy, "our" government might be like a fire fighter. But it's one who's spent the last 40-ish years charging us to pile brush up next to our homes and soak it/them in lighter fluid.
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not have that kind of firefighter around.
Re: Smoke and Fears
Here's the way things are supposed to work: if you're convinced this is for the best, open your own smoke-free music venue/bar. If you manage to make the bar fun enough to attract customers who will have to smoke outside, or enough people are against smoking in bars, you'll have a successful business, and people who don't like smoky bars will have another option.
It's called a free market. The people who want to regulate every aspect of our lives should do some research into this radical concept.