Skip to content

The Final Word on the Crackpot Conspiracist Mindset

October 17, 2009
Last night I introduced my wife to this film, one of my favorite documentaries. In it a quirky engineer stumbles into thinking he's proven the Holocaust didn't happen.

Last night I introduced my wife to this film, one of my favorite documentaries. In it a quirky engineer named Fred Leuchter stumbles into thinking he's proven the Holocaust didn't happen. In other words, he becomes a crackpot conspiracist.

From October 4 through October 8 NewsReal featured “Crackpot Chronicles: Van Jones, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rorschach, the Truthers, And Me.” The series’s purpose was to define and explain the “Crackpot Conspiracist Mindset” through analyzing a dialogue I had stumbled into with a 9/11 Truther. In doing so we could understand why A) former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones needed to be fired, B) how popular talker Glenn Beck did not fit into this pattern of  thinking, and C) why conspiracists need to be shunned from mainstream political movements.

Here’s a listing of all the parts of the series for those who missed it:

The series also inspired a few subsequent posts highlighting various notable “Truther Punksmacks” by commenters:

Throughout the series various conspiracist crackpots showed up to protest in the comments and promptly proved my point to NewsReal’s readers. (Many especially didn’t like my use of the word “crackpot” to describe them, no matter how clearly they fit the term’s definition.) They showed that I was exactly right in that this sort of thinking is a specific mentality. It’s not whatever the individual conspiracy might be that’s the issue. The problem is that those who stumble into conspiracy advocacy have a certain style of thinking which is deeply different than the rest of us. This approach makes it so it’s all but impossible to reason with them.

In engaging one of the crackpots I pointed out that my series was not about disproving 9/11 Truther garbage but explaining the Crackpot Conspiracist Mindset. He seemed to have missed this and demanded that I write a cliffs notes summary of the series.

I initially balked at the crackpot’s demand. Eventually, though, it seemed like perhaps it might be valuable to make a listing of the various aspects of crackpot conspiracist thinking. In fact there were probably a few more that I didn’t mention in the series which could be added to the list.

So let’s begin:

  1. Conspiracist Crackpots do not have a measured view of human nature and human ability. They are unable to realize that human beings are not capable of keeping the secrets and pulling the massive cons required of conspiracy narratives.
  2. Conspiracist Crackpots do not understand Ockham’s Razor, one of the key principles of logical thought. Even if you explain it to them they’ll just say, “Aha! You contradict yourself. It says right there that the simplest explanation is only usually the correct one.” You pointing out Ockham’s Razor to them is probably the first time they have ever heard of the concept.
  3. Conspiracist Crackpots tend to be obsessed with Nazism to one degree or another. The Crackpots see the horrors of Nazism as somehow evidence that grand conspiracies happen. “If a government murdering its people happened in Germany in the ’30s it can happen anywhere right now!”
  4. Conspiracist Crackpots are oblivious to the fact that their conspiracy of choice tends to relate directly to their political views. Not only that but their embrace of the conspiracy actually flows out of their political ideology. Every single Birther is opposed to Barack Obama on policy grounds. Truthers who think 9/11 was an “inside job” done by the government are almost always politically opposed to the government. Leftist Truthers hate America and Right-wing Truthers hate the federal government. Holocaust deniers hate Jews. Afrocentric leftists who think the government engineered AIDS and crack also think America is fundamentally racist. You can do this with virtually every conspiracy.
  5. Crackpot conspiracists are unqualified amateurs who rarely have any expertise to analyze the events they’re talking about. Yet they have the audacity to come to conclusions that run counter to the majority of trained experts.
  6. Crackpot conspiracists do not understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A youtube video proves nothing. What kind of mind actually gets changed as a result of some video on the internet?
  7. Crackpot conspiracists do not dialogue. There’s no reason for it. They have the Truth and are there to preach, they’re not “questioning” or “chasing truths.” They’ve already found the answers. They are in no way “open minded.” Hence they won’t really answer your questions. They’ll just change the subject.
  8. Crackpot conspiracists usually believe in more than one conspiracy. It’s no coincidence that perennial third-party candidate Ed Noonan, who showed up on one of the threads, is both a proud Birther and Truther.
  9. Crackpot conspiracists are not able to see ambiguity or complexity. In my dialogue with the Truther he said multiple times that I had the fallacy of believing that there weren’t any conspiracies. I never said that. Conspiracies do in fact happen. 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy. Al Qaeda conspired in secret to attack America and they did it. Rational people understand the difference, though, between rationally acknowledging small, individual conspiracies and irrationally seeing grand conspiracies that are unsupported by adequate evidence.

OK, so that’s nine points. I imagine I’ll want to come back to this list as more ideas come to me. Does anyone else have any other characteristics of the Conspiracist Mindset that I’ve forgotten? I’ll add any good ones to the list. (And give credit to the person who identified them!)

Advertisements
81 Comments
  1. October 17, 2009 8:04 pm

    Great film. I saw it a few years ago.

  2. October 18, 2009 3:13 am

    I guess my question is; what are we trying to accomplish with this exploration of the “crackpot conspiracist mindset?” Is this to serve as a list of things one ought not do lest they endure the horror of being labeled a crackpot? For instance, should I stop watching the Stephen Hicks documentary on the Nazis I’ve been whittling away at and ensure I not demonstrate the audacity of making comparisons between that movement and the Anti-American radical movement currently accomplishing many of the same goals? Would that make me too crackpot? Or perhaps my lack of any impressive credential means I should shut up and listen until a well-informed opinion has been constructed for me to echo? I’m having trouble understanding the motive of this discussion.

    • October 18, 2009 4:28 am

      Walter: The purpose of the discussion is to show how cleverly rational David is and how ridiculous are those who disagree with him. I will remain a Birther until Obi Kenobi shows his birth certificate, an act of such simplicity that not to show it indicates a substantive reason for Birthers’ belief that he is not an American citizen. And will his forthcoming amnesty cover himself?!

      • October 18, 2009 8:58 am

        “The purpose of the discussion is to show how cleverly rational David is and how ridiculous are those who disagree with him.”

        Yes, those possessed of the crackpot conspiracist mindset are ridiculous, as I’ve demonstrated.

        • John Bookie permalink
          November 14, 2009 7:59 am

          Hey David,

          Why are you always playing kissy face with liberals? Errol Morris is a left winger who despises you and your kind. See “Fog of War”, “Thin Blue Line.” Oh I understand why – There’s no one in film, art, music, etc. representing your views. On the other hand I praise you for featuring such a great film on your blog. Wonderful movie – so many layers – Cheers!

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 18, 2009 5:55 am

      Walter
      I am having trouble understanding where you pulled that out of this post by David Swindle I do not believe anone has made that assertion. I read Mien Kamph and also the Rise and Fall of the Third Riech. I do not think any one would discourage you from watching 0r reading anything. I do not know how you could explain the motive better than it was explained above.
      ” The series’s purpose was to define and explain the “Crackpot Conspiracist Mindset” You do not understand that?

    • October 18, 2009 5:56 am

      I’ve made my intentions abundantly clear. Why would you tolerate this kind of thinking when it’s so obviously poisonous and problematic?

  3. October 18, 2009 3:23 am

    Nevermind. Reviewing the threads now, which I should have started with. I think I get it. It’s fishing. This is another cast.

    • October 18, 2009 5:56 am

      Fishing?

  4. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 18, 2009 6:39 am

    Good synopsis…

  5. October 18, 2009 7:14 am

    Another characteristic of Crackpot Conspiracists is that they usually first seek to destroy or oppose a person or a group and develop hypothetical rationale for their position including facts that support their theory and excluding facts that do not support their position. For example few or none of the birthers are Obama supporters. Few or none of the 9/11 conspiracy supporters are Bush supporters. However,
    birthers do have a point – why is the true birth certificate of Obama being suppressed? (It is also reported that he attended one US education institution on a foreign student scholorship!)

  6. Jim permalink
    October 18, 2009 8:04 am

    It is a fact that Obama is hiding something… many things. Therefore Obama is responsible for us birthers having a conspiracy to “imagine,” and we have no reason to be ashamed of our beliefs until HE proves otherwise.

    • October 18, 2009 8:16 am

      What is Obama hiding that you need to see? And please cite a source to back yourself up which shows that he has gone to efforts to hide or repress his birth certificate or some other document.

      It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate YOUR arguments. One cannot prove a negative.

      • Jim permalink
        October 18, 2009 9:14 pm

        David: You know well what he has sealed from public scrutiny: birth, health, college (many), employment records. What more proof of hiding stuff do you need? Every other candidate and eventual president has made all of those records available. Remember how Bush was mocked for his? Where are Obama’s? You cannot get them. How about McCain releasing his health records after taking a beating by the Mess Strewn Media for his age and health. Where is Obama’s health history?

  7. George Debski permalink
    October 18, 2009 8:34 am

    “Conspiracist Crackpots do not understand Ockham’s Razor,”

    There is an even better way to determine truth. As the great Sherlock Holmes would say: “When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.”

    “Yet they have the audacity to come to conclusions that run counter to the majority of trained experts.”

    There is a major fallacy in that statement, which seems to conclude that “Trained Experts” actually know what they are talking about. As we have been able to observe in the current economic and political fields, and even scientific fields (e.g Global Warming), those “Trained Experts” are, in a majority of cases, wrong, and sometimes abysmally so.

    Birthers: Although I believe it is probably unlikely that Obama is not a citizen, it has still not been shown to my satisfaction that he is. I have been unable to find a great many facts about his early life, including his college years. This makes me uncomfortable.

    Truthers: As you say, the actual conspiracy consisted of some Islamic loonies driving planes into our buildings. However, that does not preclude the possibility of someone in the past administration having knowledge of what was likely to happen and keeping silent.

    Did FDR, or the intelligence agencies of the day, have any inkling of the coming destruction in Pearl Harbor? It is quite likely that someone did.

    The truth is a very rare commodity, and ironically, it is becoming much harder to discern, even though we have such prodigious amounts of information at our fingertips.

    Listening to our “Leaders” in most fields, it is astounding how they stand up and talk to us with the ability to lie so convincingly that I truly believe they have somehow been able to turn reality around inside their heads, and that they in fact believe the lies they say.

    The only other explanation would be a vast conspiracy of such galactic proportions that 9/11 becomes just a footnote…………Of course, since those same “Leaders” are truly idiots and morons, they would be unable to sustain such a conspiracy, thank God…….

    George

    • October 18, 2009 8:55 am

      You know it’s funny that you mention Sherlock Holmes. In the documentary above that I cited, “Mr. Death,” the historian who refutes Fred Leuchter’s Holocaust denial conspiracy theory says this:

      “Leuchter’s a victim of the myth of Sherlock Holmes. A crime has been committed. You go to the site of the crime and with a magnifying glass you find a hair…or a speck of dust on the shoe. Leuchter thinks that is the way reality can be reconstructed. But he is no Sherlock Holmes. He doesn’t have the training.”

      Only Sherlock Holmes is brilliant enough to perfectly apply the principle that you cite.

      This is interesting:

      “The truth is a very rare commodity, and ironically, it is becoming much harder to discern, even though we have such prodigious amounts of information at our fingertips.”

      The fact that more information is available to us makes finding what’s actually true all the more difficult. Thus the Sherlock Holmes task is all but impossible because the number of things to eliminate is infinite.

      “There is a major fallacy in that statement, which seems to conclude that “Trained Experts” actually know what they are talking about.”

      You only say that because of the politicization of and the leftist invasion of higher education. You’re right that many so-called experts aren’t really specialists, they’re just ideologues.

      However most “trained experts” are apolitical and know what they’re talking about. A trained demolitions expert tends to know what he’s talking about. A biologist/physicist/chemist knows what he’s talking about. A doctor knows what he’s talking about. Etc. etc.

      • George Debski permalink
        October 18, 2009 9:55 am

        You are, of course, correct in stating that removing the impossible to get at the truth is quite difficult today due to the large amount of information available. I wonder how Sherlock Holmes would have approached it?

        Your thoughts about trained experts being apolitical is debatable. If you consider politics, not in the strict meaning of the word, but as it is used today (ideology), then even many hard science experts seem to be tainted with it. If you consider eugenics, for example, especially as practiced in the 20’s, 30’s and 40s, many scientists allowed their ideology to color their test results, and these people were most assuredly “Trained Experts”.

        Today, you see many highly trained climatologists with polar opposite views of the results of science that presupposes that our human activity contributes to climatic changes a lot more than the sun, or internal earth mechanisms do.

        I watched a debate between 2 doctors about the efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine, with polar opposite views of the results of injecting it into a human body.

        In the CERN Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, particles are accelerated to tremendous velocities, almost at the speed of light. It has been beset by some unexplained disasters.

        Some scientists attest these are only chance events. Yet others claim that discovering the Higgs Boson (the God particle), makes it abhorrent to nature, and as a result, this facility will always be beset by problems because events would ripple backwards through time to put a stop to whatever it was that had created it in the first place.

        Incredibly, this point of view has been followed by rigorous mathematical proofs. Again, we have “Trained Experts” with polar opposite views.

        Finally, consider the extremely highly trained economists from Princeton, Harvard and Yale, you know, the ones that torpedoed our economy, and now are trying to fix it.

        I have more faith in my own thought processes then I do in the intelligence, knowledge and common sense of the majority of “Trained Experts” I have met in schools, read, or listened to.

        PS. I’m truly enjoying this………..

        • October 18, 2009 10:24 am

          I’m not really talking about global warming here. It seems like your opposition to me on this point stems from your opposition to what climatologists have to say about global warming.

          When I mean “trained experts” I’m talking about it more as it relates to the subject at hand — conspiracy thinking. 9/11 Truthers are not trained to analyze buildings tumbling down or the physics of melting steel. Fred Leuchter was not trained as a historian so he was ill-equipped to determine if historically the Holocaust happened.

          “I have more faith in my own thought processes then I do in the intelligence, knowledge and common sense of the majority of “Trained Experts” I have met in schools, read, or listened to.”

          But you have no problem with the “trained experts” who profess views which you support. Surely your opinions on global warming are informed by “trained experts” who come to conclusions apart from other “trained experts.” That experts screw up and that experts come to contradictory conclusions is not to dismiss the very idea of someone going to college and learning how to analyze the world.

          I mean, don’t you think it’s a reasonable point that I’m making here as it relates to conspiracist thinking? That 9/11 Truthers that talk about building demolitions and melting steel, etc. are totally ill-equipped to analyze this stuff?

        • November 23, 2009 8:19 pm

          Also, John Nash’s Game Theory contends that everyone acts (and should act) with self-interest whether they be politicians or trained experts or laity or clergy, and if everyone does this everyone achieves optimization.

      • October 31, 2009 3:11 am

        If you think doctors know what they are talking about, why are so many prescription drugs issued inappropriately and unnecessarily? And do scientists know when they are misleading the public in order to fund research i.e. keep themselves in remunerated employment for a lifetime’s career? In some degree, Dave, you are so naive, I worry for you, adrift in a wide, wide world.

        • October 31, 2009 6:38 am

          So if you get cancer or you break your leg then don’t go to a doctor. Just take care of it yourself. Put your money where your mouth is. Then we’ll see who’s being “naive.” That’s an utterly ridiculous point.

  8. Jeremy permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:51 am

    “9/11 was indeed a conspiracy. Al Qaeda conspired in secret to attack America and they did it. Rational people understand the difference, though, between rationally acknowledging small, individual conspiracies and irrationally seeing grand conspiracies that are unsupported by adequate evidence.”

    David –

    I have to agree with you on this point, and most of your other points as well.

    How does something get labeled as, I’ll call it, a “true conspiracy” rather than a “crackpot conspiracy” though? My opinion, to sum it up, is it all depends on the reaction and treatment of the topic in the mainstream media.

    Here’s where I get confused, and it goes back to your Al-Qaeda reference above… I see in the news today that there was another bombing in Iran, and I see the all to common (to me at least) reference to the terrorist group Jundallah, which has open ties to “Al Qaeda” and has carried our brutal terrorist attacks in Iran in the past.

    Of course Iran is blaming the United States and allies for the attack, and the U.S. government is of course condemning the actions and denies involvement. Typical coverage by our media… “Iran makes crazy accusation and they are wrong because our government said so”… but that’s not what international news sources say.

    There are a multitude of articles about past attacks by Jundallah from sources worldwide. Some of the stories are in U.S. media, but they are mostly suppressed. Do a Google news search on “Jundallah” or “Jundullah” to find around 1500 articles.

    Obviously I haven’t read all 1500 articles, but I could easily say that I’ve read and cross referenced hundreds of them over the past few years.

    Here’s my point…

    I’m going to go ahead and say that the United States government support, funds, and trains terrorists and terrorist organizations and has done so for decades, whether it be covertly over overtly (does the School Of Americas ring a bell?). Jundallah is one of their more recent projects, and the international news is quick to pick up on it. As an American living in America, all you have to do is read some international news to find out about things your own media refuses to cover by design.

    Does this statement lump me in with the crackpots? Or, does lack of understanding of this statement by the reader make them a crackpot?

    What is your opinion on U.S. support for Jundallah and other terrorist organizations, David? Leaving all the 9/11 Truth arguments aside, don’t you think it’s a little more complicated than just saying “we we clearly attacked by Al Qaeda?” I do.

    Who/What really is Al Qaeda and how have our past actions in the Middle East played into its creation and continued existence? Remember, Al Qaeda is more of an idea rather than a tightly knit group of terrorists. This is my area of focus because it directly ties into 9/11 and hence the direction of our nation and the world due to that horrific event. This is why I think we should stay out of the affairs of all nations and support our interests through dialogue and trade… you severely minimize the chance of blowback, certainly at the levels of 9/11.

    You seem to think that ideas or movement can be summed up in a few points and then tossed about as “crackpot” based on these broad assumptions… extremely similar to your Beck/Frum/Ron Paul article. I find this to be very dangerous logic. The world isn’t simple enough to think this way in my opinion.

    http://www.stratfor.com/iran_balochi_insurgents_and_iraq_tango

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/18/iran.suicide.attack/index.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568381,00.html

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF03Ak01.html

  9. October 18, 2009 10:05 am

    I’m going to ask you the same question I recall asking you before: which point from your book do you want to answer? Because when you make half a dozen arguments then it’s necessary to focus the debate onto the point that really matters to you.

    I will address this one right off the bat, though:

    “You seem to think that ideas or movement can be summed up in a few points and then tossed about as “crackpot” based on these broad assumptions… extremely similar to your Beck/Frum/Ron Paul article. I find this to be very dangerous logic. The world isn’t simple enough to think this way in my opinion.”

    I don’t think that way. I’m talking about a specific mentality that can be found in specific individuals. And the world is very complex…

    Do all people who are interested in conspiracies fall into the Crackpot Conspiracist Mentality? Certainly not. Many people are in fact truth-seeking questioners. This is a good thing. It’s perfectly legitimate if someone wants to get more facts about 9/11 or Obama’s birth certificate or the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. QUESTIONING official stories is healthy. REJECTING them outright and replacing them with narratives unsupported by facts is not. What is illegitimate is to aggressively defend the propositions that 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Kenya, and the Holocaust didn’t happen. See the difference?

    • Jeremy permalink
      October 18, 2009 12:29 pm

      David,

      More like half a dozen points towards one basic argument… that’s okay though, I know I take a lot of words to make my point.

      I will really sum it up. How can we accept the notion that “Al Qaeda” conspired to attack us 9/11, and did so successfully? I’m not talking about the way the buildings fell, molten steel, or any other popular 9/11 Truth topics.

      Simply stating, can you accept the explanation that it was a group of highly fanatical terrorists determined to carefully plan and carry out the attacks? Basically, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed masterminded the attacks as the mainstream media would put it… Al Qaeda is solely to blame. They did it because they hate our way of life… I think you get my point…

      I find it to be far more complicated than that.

      And now today, I see more evidence of the fact that our government is continuing to support an “Al Qaeda” linked group (Jundallah), which is carrying out brutal attacks in Iran and has been for years.

      So I ask, how we can possibly defeat what we are also supporting? On many levels, the people that we label as “Al Qaeda” are the people we propped up and funded in the past (and present) to support interests of the past (and present).

      Unless this pattern stops (supporting interests with bullets and bombs rather than words and handshakes), then I would expect more international outrage towards America and probably more attacks.

      • October 18, 2009 4:16 pm

        Yes, we were involved with supporting the elements which would one day become al qaeda. (The mujahideen in Afghanistan.) But in all of your discussion you make no mention of WHY we did that. (And we had a pretty good reason.) Would you like to explain what it was since you appear to be so educated on the subject? (And then if you object to it, explain what we should have done instead?)

        Henry Kissinger once said that the choice that statesmen have is often a choice between evils. Sometimes there aren’t good options when it comes to foreign policy. He was correct.

        One cannot just rip foreign policy decisions out of the context under which they were made. And that’s what you appear to be doing in making whatever ill-defined central point you have yet to actually state.

        P.S. I’m still looking forward to the conclusion of our previous discussion. I don’t recall you ever finishing your case that Israel would still continue to exist and be fine without the $3 billion in aid we give them each year.

        • Jeremy permalink
          October 19, 2009 8:26 am

          David,

          Why did we support the Majahadeen fighters?

          Of course, we had to fund terrorists because it was our only choice to try and contain the big bad Soviets. We had to help those fighting against the Soviets regardless of who they are or may become because we shared the same goal at the time. They didn’t want the Soviets in Afghanistan, and we funded them and gave them weapons to accomplish their goal while also accomplishing ours. It was an act of genius and it worked out very well.

          But don’t listen to the popular belief… let’s instead go to the words of one of the most decisive people of the topic.

          Here’s an article on the very subject… an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. He openly admits to deceiving the public and secretly funding terrorists well before the Soviets were even a threat in the region. He also notes that there was a vocalized realization that this would lead to conflict, and he apparently thinks it was a brilliant idea. This interview was in 1998… I wonder how brilliant he felt on 9/11/2001.

          Do you agree with this kind of foreign policy, David? Secretly funneling tax payer dollars to terrorists? Deliberately taking courses that you know will lead to military conflict and death? Propping up the Taliban?

          I personally don’t subscribe to any of the “ends justify to means” views. Although you could argue that they do contain logic, they contain a lot more bloodshed.

          What should be have done instead? Cancel the decision to fund terrorists regardless of the threat (which we now know was minimal at the time… we created a trap rather than reacted to a threat). Don’t lie to the American public. Those two basic decisions would have made a big difference in history, but the fact of the matter is that we wanted it to be secret and we wanted to fund terrorists because it furthered the evil agenda.

          “Henry Kissinger once said that the choice that statesmen have is often a choice between evils. Sometimes there aren’t good options when it comes to foreign policy. He was correct.”

          He was incorrect. If you only have a choice between two evils, then clearly you made mistakes prior that led to these choices and/or the evil choices are your own creation to further your own evil agenda. Every action has a reaction, so if you find yourself choosing between two evils, then I would have to wonder about post decisions based on flawed policy, beliefs, and logic.

          Henry Kissinger is a war criminal by the way… I can’t believe you would reference him.

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

          David, I didn’t “finish” our discussion about Israel because it would take more than you apparently want to read in order to make my point. I personally can’t explain why I feel Israel would be fine without our military aid in a few paragraphs. My position will become more clear as I post more if you can accept that.

          • October 19, 2009 8:49 am

            “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal by the way… I can’t believe you would reference him.”

            You mean he’s a war criminal according to leftist foreign policy analysts. I think I know what books you’ve been reading and who’s influenced your foreign policy views…

            ““Henry Kissinger once said that the choice that statesmen have is often a choice between evils. Sometimes there aren’t good options when it comes to foreign policy. He was correct.”

            He was incorrect. If you only have a choice between two evils, then clearly you made mistakes prior that led to these choices and/or the evil choices are your own creation to further your own evil agenda.”

            This seems rather naive. This is an imperfect world with imperfect options. Let’s take another example of US foreign policy evil that you would no doubt cite: Augusto Pinochet and Chile. Which option is worse: allowing a socialist president who’s basically a puppet of the Soviet Union or supporting a capitalist dictator knowing that eventually it would become a capitalist democracy? The two choices are both “evil” — one is less “evil” than the other. There is no third morally pure option and we in no way caused this foreign policy dilemma.

            Given where Chile is at now compared to her neighbors it’s clear that we made the right choice. Do you disagree?

            Your use of the word “evil agenda” is intriguing. Do you believe the United States has an “evil agenda” in the world?

            “David, I didn’t “finish” our discussion about Israel because it would take more than you apparently want to read in order to make my point.”

            Well that’s quite a cop out. If you need to write a long rebuttal or response you can always submit a letter to the editor or guest blog to me.

            • Jeremy permalink
              October 19, 2009 9:01 am

              David,

              You entire reply is a cop out. You ignored my entire response to instead attack me about a comment that was more like a “side note” Another leftist remark? Come on…

              Stay on topic.

              • October 19, 2009 9:09 am

                When you have such long comments with so many different points in them it’s difficult to figure out what you want me to respond to. Don’t get mad at me for being interested in responding to only one or two of your half dozen points. My time is limited and I’d appreciate if you respected that.

                Come on, let’s get to the root of our disagreement.

                • Jeremy permalink
                  October 19, 2009 9:30 am

                  David,

                  You just said:

                  “When you have such long comments with so many different points in them it’s difficult to figure out what you want me to respond to. Don’t get mad at me for being interested in responding to only one or two of your half dozen points. My time is limited and I’d appreciate if you respected that.”

                  Let’s recap… you said two posts ago, “But in all of your discussion you make no mention of WHY we did that. (And we had a pretty good reason.) Would you like to explain what it was since you appear to be so educated on the subject? (And then if you object to it, explain what we should have done instead?)”

                  I replied with first the general understanding of the issue, followed by what was understood by people involved, and finished with what I thought should have been done since I disagree.

                  I stayed right on point and answered your questions. There weren’t “so many different points” as you say.

                  Why did you ignore my entire statement with references and go right to my off the cuff remark about Kissinger?

                  Henry Kissinger is a great man and I love him very much… there… now will you address the real body of my response and stay on topic?

                  • October 19, 2009 9:43 am

                    Well technically we’re well off topic already. The topic of the post is the Crackpot Conspiracist Mindset and you want to talk about the Mujahideen.

                    I did address your point. You say that there are no circumstances where statesmen have to choose between evils. You say that any such circumstances are self-inflicted. I engaged you on this point and pointed out how I disagree.

                    The issue of the mujahideen is not the root disagreement we have. If we’re going to talk about our differences we need to go to the root. And that’s in our disagreement that the US is sometimes going to have to choose between the lesser of evils. I’m also still concerned about your comment about the US’s “evil agenda.”

                    If there’s something that I’m not responding to that you want responded then copy and paste what I need to respond to in order to appease you.

          • Dave permalink
            October 29, 2009 5:41 pm

            One of my favorite sayings of all times. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This was true in WWII when we got into bed with Uncle Joe, it was true when our own American Revolution was supported by the French. Who just happened to have great dissdain of England at that time. Sometimes world affairs creates strange bed fellows.

      • November 10, 2009 6:53 am

        It is sad that I still see people thinking that 9/11 was because of some supposed American meddling in the Middle East. Shortly after 9/11 Osama bin Laden said, “What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated.”

        He was of course talking about the dividing up of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British after WWI. So what does America have to do with that? Nothing. But America is the strongest power among the infidels and as such, is the greatest impediment to a new Caliphate.

        If Britain or France or Germany were today the strongest world power then Bin Laden’s Fatwa would be directed against the citizens of those countries.

        George Bush, for all the wrong reasons, had it right: we were attacked because of who we are. But it’s not because of our freedoms or our actions. The Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan, but Bin Laden did not issue a fatwa against Russia. The Soviet Union has held more Muslims subjugate than any nation on Earth, but Bin Laden did not issue a fatwa against Russia. The Soviet Union (and now Russia) had her military involved in almost every single Muslim nation, but Bin Laden did not issue a fatwa against Russia.

        America in 1991 was asked by two Muslim nations for protection against another Muslim nation but we, not Russia, are the bad guys.

        When Russian soldiers were killing Muslims in Afghanistan, it was America that was helping protect Muslim lives, but we, not Russia, are the bad guys.

        When Russian-backed Serbs were killing Muslims, who stopped them? America. But we, not Russia, are the bad guys.

        Funny, it doesn’t seem as if meddling in the Middle East or killing Muslims or holding millions of Muslims subjugate bothers Osama bin Laden. What truly bothers him and every true Muslim, is that we are the most powerful nation on Earth, and therefore stand in the way of a one world Dar al-Islam.

        Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, attacking Iraq, or supporting Israel are red-herrings.

    • Hamish permalink
      October 18, 2009 11:50 pm

      David said…

      ‘Do all people who are interested in conspiracies fall into the Crackpot Conspiracist Mentality? Certainly not. Many people are in fact truth-seeking questioners. This is a good thing. It’s perfectly legitimate if someone wants to get more facts about 9/11 or Obama’s birth certificate or the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. QUESTIONING official stories is healthy. REJECTING them outright and replacing them with narratives unsupported by facts is not. What is illegitimate is to aggressively defend the propositions that 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Kenya, and the Holocaust didn’t happen. See the difference?’

      This is such a shonky statement!

      So…it is a good thing to be a truth seeking question. It is perfectly legitimate if someone wants more information about 911, Obama, gas chambers, etc. Questioning official stories is healthy. You said so yourself.

      But what say our truthseeking questioner, having researched the issue at hand (let’s say 911) – being even a sceptic of the sceptics, then questions the official story. Further, after such research, they come to reject the official story, and then seek to put the pieces of the jigsaw together in another way, proposing ‘another narrative’ – even that it was an ‘insider job’ – one supported BY the facts. By what sleight of hand does this become illegitimate, even if it is aggressively defended or promoted, and designated by you ‘crackpot’ and the other numerous names you’ve called.

      It becomes illegitimate as far as you are concerned, because a search for the truth in your mind only ends up at one place, the place that you have decided in advance it should. Thus the questioner can ask all the questions they like, but they must never come to any answers except the ones you have authorised. If they arrive at different answers, they are a ‘crackpot’.

      You conform perfectly to your number 7 above…

      ‘7. Crackpot conspiracists do not dialogue. There’s no reason for it. They have the Truth and are there to preach, they’re not “questioning” or “chasing truths.” They’ve already found the answers. They are in no way “open minded.” Hence they won’t really answer your questions. They’ll just change the subject.’

      David, you really should try and do better than this…

      • October 19, 2009 6:34 am

        If you haven’t figured it out yet I’m not going to engage with you. As I’ve clearly demonstrated such dialogues are a waste of time.

  10. jhimmi permalink
    October 18, 2009 10:38 am

    I view everything and everybody with varying degrees of skepticism. One must also consider the real world implications of ‘grand’ conspiracy theories. I suppose the conspiracy theorist thinks the conspiracy will simply dissolve once the truth is exposed, like throwing water on the wicked witch, and everyone will live happily ever after.

    But, even if there’s a grain of truth in a conspiracy theory, it doesn’t necessarily mean it changes anything. The most likely explanations for government ‘collusion’ with regards to 9/11 are incompetence or a lack of specifics coupled with a desire to avoid panicking the public. Does this information significantly alter anyone’s day to day reality? If the most extreme conspiracy scenario was true, the power of the secret cabal responsible would know no bounds. Wouldn’t a truther’s time be better spent trying to find ways to improve their state, their city, their neighborhood, rather than tilting at windmills?

    Likewise, the most likely ‘birther’ scenarios involve technicalites that, even if made public, wouldn’t change anything. Obama could plead ignorance, having been very young at the time of his birth. His mother was a US citizen. He was obviously in the US within days of his birth, as evidenced by the Hawaii certificate of live birth. What would happen if any of the birther claims were proven? Would Obama be impeached? With huge Dem majorites, and international/UN support, it’s doubtful. But, let’s say, for the sake of argument, Obama is impeached, Biden takes over, and Obama becomes the ultimate martyr. For people that oppose Obama’s agenda, is that productive? Birthers undermine all opponents to Obama’s agenda by making it seem too difficult to oppose him on the issues.

  11. Judy permalink
    October 18, 2009 12:11 pm

    David, I was not going to chime in on this subject again, but, feel that I have to inject my two cents. I believe that the Obama machine is much more devious and adept at deception that we give them credit for. The “birther” issue may have started as a simple conspiracy theory, but it is my belief that Rahm Emmanuel and his team of hachet men (Media Matters, Podesta and his tribe of Marxists, Ms Dunn, etc) have launched this “conspiracy” theory into orbit for their own benefit. It has now become an acute distraction to some and the benefit to others to point out the “nuts” on the conservative side. Rahm Emmanuel is the king of deception and manipulation who has the philosophy of never letting a crisis go to waste. How about actually creating a crisis as a distraction from what is happening within government?Just how many on this site droning on and on about the birth certificate are Obama operatives creating a turmoil through distraction? Rather like watching an illusionist hide the elephant. After studying their use of the Alisky tactics, I put nothing past them at this point. The question to pose is, even if his birth certificate is fake, what are you going to do about it? And, do your really think that Obama and the malignancy of his supporters in every aspect of government, education, unions, banks, industry, the workplace will permit you to remove him? Now, it is my opinion that this is the purpose of his upcoming “well-armed, well-organized civilian army”. To stop dissent, control communication and gatherings,(perhaps enforce martial law) and insure that no opposition can be organized against Obama. Why else would he need a private army?The birth certificate issue is not worth any effort. Focusing your effort into changing those in power in future elections should be the primary goal along with speaking out boldly against the destruction of our society and constitution.

  12. Hamish permalink
    October 18, 2009 12:23 pm

    Yet more abuse, name-calling, ridicule, stereotyping, intimidation, arrogance, condescension, and self-congratulation, etc…

    • October 18, 2009 4:20 pm

      Yet more inability to answer the argument.

  13. George Debski permalink
    October 18, 2009 12:59 pm

    “I believe that the Obama machine is much more devious and adept at deception that we give them credit for.”

    I happen to believe the exact opposite.

    The Obama administration is filled with idiots and morons, who, by sheer chance and fortuitous circumstances, have stumbled upon a way to impose their agenda of increasing their power and amassing wealth.

    The problem with being an idiot and a moron is that, even if chance favors you for a while, you begin to believe your own narrative and fall under the spell of your own charisma, thus becoming blind to things which are glaringly obvious even to the average person. Since you don’t know any other way to act, you continue with what you think brought you here in the first place.

    Although your stupidity might cause some damage in the short run, it will soon enough lead to disenchantment by the general population, thus ending the possibility of any kind of prolonged stay in power.

    Indeed, this scenario is already starting to play itself out. This administration has about 12 months of effectiveness left before it becomes a footnote on the pages of history………..

  14. S Bailey permalink
    October 18, 2009 3:49 pm

    Didn’t see this answered so I’ll simply post it here…

    You asked by what authority do we have the right to see our current president’s birth certificate (or words to that effect)….

    I respond by stating the United States Constitution, nothing more, nothing less.

    I have a birth certificate, if I were required to show or submit it, I would, especially if it were necessary for public office. It’s a simple thing. Certainly if I were nominated for the Presidency of the United States, I would publish it online for any & all to see. I would keep my school records available, if necessary & any such records that weren’t private. It seems that the more overt a person is, the less likely that detractors would have anything to “dig up”. Thus spending over a million dollars of legal fees makes little sense. Of course, if you’re trying to obfuscate something else, then you’d want the focus to be on something that would nearly be meaningless to many.

    Seeing the number of radicals, communists, socialists & other ‘lesser types’ the president has surrounded himself in the White House, I find little comfort in the fact that he does hide a great deal about his past. Even, most recently, it was admitted by the author, Wm Ayers, that he wrote O’s “auto-“biography, instead of the ‘great’ man himself.

    The more that is uncovered about Barak, the more questions arise instead of answers.

    I wasn’t a ‘birther’, I’ve seen much of that which was supposedly his certificates & other internet ‘documents’, but many, if not all, seem to be forgeries or that which doesn’t comprise an Official Government document….

    Do I suggest that the “plot” to produce a counter-revolutionary into the presidency was created in the early 1960’s….an emphatic NO!

    Rather, I do consider that his family in Hawaii thought to make the effort to create a path for him to obtain US Citizenship without having to emigrate. That makes a lot more sense that anything nefarious like gaining the Presidency from over 40 years ago….

    I would also submit that it would be easier for him to have produced documentation at the various colleges/universities he associated himself with as a ‘visiting’ student with the appropriate subsidies by governments here & abroad. This also would explain his hesitancy to allow the publication of his school records. In other words, Barak had his cake & ate it too. At times he could be an American Citizen, at others, he could be a Foreign National….to pick & choose which would make him get the edge on others in the same arena.

    One argument is that if he wasn’t a US Citizen, how did he get a US Passport? Given that he was a US Senator from Illinois and most likely obtained his Passport in Chicago, is it a real stretch that ‘anything’ he submitted as proof would have been accepted without question? Who wants to upset a United States Senator, especially one that has significant connections with the Governor’s Office, not to mention the Daley Political Machine in Chicago? Can you say political suicide for the one person that might question it.

    I am neither convinced that he is or isn’t a Natural Born American Citizen, I merely submit that there isn’t enough Proof that he is. He was supposedly vetted by the DNC. Yet the proper documents that were supposed to have been submitted to each state’s Secretary of State, were not submitted, rather the wrong document was submitted.

    “When is a certification not a certification? When it doesn’t aver to the truth, but only alludes to it!”

    • October 18, 2009 5:12 pm

      “You asked by what authority do we have the right to see our current president’s birth certificate (or words to that effect)….”

      Where the hell did I ask that?

      Have you demanded to see every other President’s birth certificate? You’re holding Obama to a standard you haven’t held every other President. Why is that? Because you rightfully don’t like his leftist political vision?

  15. Judy permalink
    October 18, 2009 4:53 pm

    George,
    By watching a nobody with no actual real world experience be elected President, I can assure you that those in his administration are neither idiots or morons. Their tactics and believes have been in the making for years and they have a hundred million supporters here and countless abroad. They operate on a scale of practiced deceit/deviousness that most of of are never exposed to. They work like a well-oiled Chicago mob machine with the power and finances to back them up. With crisis, diversion, disruption,deceit, total inclusiveness or total exclusiveness being the foundation of their ability to overwhelm and control the system. Obama himself is weak, a coward without a moral compass, a liar an expert in deceit and devisiveness. But, when you combine the whole of those that surround him they become a unified force that seeks a mutual agenda. I initially found him to be buffonish until I realized that what you see and hear from this administration is carefully crafted and executed to achieve a singular goal of changing the very foundations of this country. This is just my opinion but underestimating them will be our destruction.

    • October 18, 2009 5:16 pm

      “By watching a nobody with no actual real world experience be elected President, I can assure you that those in his administration are neither idiots or morons.”

      This is correct. A moron could not have beaten the Clinton political machine, one of modern American politics’ most brilliant political forces.

      • William James Ward permalink
        November 14, 2009 12:57 pm

        Political Machine? By their nature they conspire to make you believe
        in what they are selling. Obama said many things but now we know they
        are not true, falsehood slips from his tongue with ease as long as it
        is scripted. I have no dog in you’re dispute and personally think yes
        there are some conspiracies but I wonder if I am alone in the thought
        that the Republican and Democratic Parties have been playing “good cop,
        bad cop” with the American public for Oh!about a hundred years.
        It seems the public is nothing but herd cattle, to be shorn as the
        politico’s deem necessary to prolong their political lives and sit at
        the top 10% of the economy generationally. The political mob does not
        represent the American people any more than the 10% of Russia’s
        Citizens who were Communists represented the 90% of its citizens who
        were in effect slaves. We are going that way now, the end of America
        is the result of our government spending us into a blind alley that
        requires Authoritarian rule, or maybe better said. “Fascism”
        Think of it a health bill that calls for criminal penalties if
        you won’t buy, where does that crap come from in “America”, seems
        that maybe someone has been conspiring to undermine our Constitution.
        I do not believe the “Men in Black” will out the government but
        damn it is getting unsettling. Alien on the surface and considering
        all the areas of attack against American life as known in my
        life it seems the entire government is one big fat conspiracy. No
        neat fabrication lines, no smoking gun, just a vast confusion
        and alienation of being a common citizen. Luckily for my generation
        which is on the way out we were not educated to not think, unlucky
        for those who come after us and have to hit pictures on a screen
        to do their thinking for them. The government seems to be making
        a big move to undermine all of the American fundamentals of our
        existence. My reality is not drawn into proofs for logical permutation,
        premises needing explaination nor a bright light in the sky to tell me
        America is being sold out from within and without and the sacrafices
        of my line may have been in vain. I just can not believe all of the
        flag draped coffins I have seen and loved ones parted from, brothers
        in arms altogether family, friends and neighbors dismissed to historical
        footprint by empty suits, coniving theives, murderers of the soul.
        My hope remains in the fact that there are patriots yet breathing and
        able to know the times they are living in and possess the ability
        to act.

        • Jonathan permalink
          November 14, 2009 4:01 pm

          “Good Cop, Bad Cop” – Why yes, that is precisely the phrase I’ve been using myself for about 20 years. You are not alone!

          Rest assured the most earnest patriots are out there, and they aren’t on the internet broadcasting for every enemy to see and hear.

    • October 31, 2009 3:21 am

      Obama is a mere mouthpiece, a frontman for the radical. obnoxious left.

  16. S Bailey permalink
    October 18, 2009 6:45 pm

    Now you change the argument…the question is not about any other president, but this one….changing the argument to ask if I questioned any one else’s birth certificate does not change the fact that I asked to see this one. If 2008, was the first election I had voted in there would be no reason to ask me if I had requested to see any other candidate’s birth certificate. No more importantly than asking for George Washington’s birth certificate…tho’ there was a particular exception for those Patriots that had participated in the Revolution and were prior English subjects.

    BTW, the > you < I referred to was a collective you all…it was a condition set by the overall theme of the arguments involved.

    I'm certain that while those behind the scenes & supporting el presidente are educated & perceived as smart, they have found that the actual 'running' of the country is a bit more difficult than first assumed.

    I didn't vote for him & the more of his policies that are revealed scares the heck out of me, not so much for myself, but for my children & grand-children.

    If it is proven that he is actually ineligible to be president, then every law he has signed, every treaty or agreement with a foreign government or organization & every executive order is null & void. Not to mention wasting the better part of the last 3 years to an empty candidacy.

    • Hamish permalink
      October 18, 2009 8:27 pm

      ‘Changing the argument’ seems to be a tactic David employs…along with name-calling, abuse , ridicule, etc, which he uses when people score points against him. He does not appear to be open to other views, rather to just assert his own…

    • October 19, 2009 6:37 am

      “Now you change the argument…”

      Actually it was YOU who changed the argument. I write a post about the conspiracist mindset and you show up not to address the argument at hand but to promote the Birther Conspiracy.

  17. Jim permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:08 pm

    For those who question what is the basis for doubting Obama’s past, where have you been living for the last year? No president has gone to such extreme lengths to hide his past. It is a fact. No president has ever before sealed their academic, health, employment and birth records from the public. Obama has done all of that and more.

    So what are we to believe is in those hidden records? There is undoubtedly a LOT that he does not want us to see or know. Hopefully in the upcoming court proceedings in January the judge will order him to open these records to us. We deserve to know what he is hiding. That is NOT conspiracy theorizing. It is basic due diligence.

    • October 31, 2009 3:27 am

      Absolutely true.

  18. Jeremy permalink
    October 19, 2009 10:05 am

    David,

    The site won’t let me reply to your latest post…

    We got off into the Mujahadeen because my original point was about how something is accepted as a “real conspiracy” versus a “crackpot conspiracy”

    I made the broad (and true) statement that the United States funds and supports terrorism, and has done so for decades. We are now seeing the reactions to all of our past actions.

    At face value, someone who is accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism when the mainstream talks about the War On Terror all day would look like a crackpot conspiracy theorist without a doubt. It’s like one guy wearing black clothes in a sea of white clothes… that’s how our media works… pack mentality.

    Someone who provides references to admissions and boasting about the U.S. supporting terrorists cannot be taken as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, unless the uninformed refuse to be informed… then they are the crackpots.

    That’s my whole point. Your article about the “crackpot conspiracy mindset” can only go so far. Sure there are plenty of people out there that just babble nonsense. You still eventually hit a point where it’s the ignorant listener or reader that is the crackpot because they have never heard about the topic being covered and refuse to open their minds and entertain the possible reformation of an opinion based on new data.

    My “evil agenda” comment is on point with this discussion. We shouldn’t fund terrorism if we are also vowing to fight it. Jundallah is the latest example, and there never was and never will be an excuse to have to fund terrorists (i.e. have to choose between a lesser of two evils).

    • October 19, 2009 10:12 am

      “That’s my whole point. Your article about the “crackpot conspiracy mindset” can only go so far.”

      Well yeah. Of course.

      Arguing that the US “funds terrorists” is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a political opinion and analysis. It does not fit my definition of crackpot conspiracism.

      • Jeremy permalink
        October 19, 2009 10:22 am

        David,

        Ok then… well that was my point. I would argue the the U.S. funding terrorism is not political opinion (its fact), but rather the effects or usefulness are a political opinion.

        I use a lot of words and points to make my main point because I have been quickly labeled as a “crackpot” in the past. Laying some ground work helps to convey my point, especially when I know the information is probably brand new to the reader. Just a side note to clarify my style further…

        Again, my positions will become more clear as I post more. If there’s anything you want to discuss further let me know (Israel position, evil agenda, etc.)

        Otherwise.. ’til next time.

        David – take care.

        • October 19, 2009 10:40 am

          As an ex-leftist the views certainly aren’t new to me since I used to hold variations of them myself. But I imagine they would be new to others.

          But yes, let’s move on to “evil agenda.”

          Does the United States have an “evil agenda” with its foreign policy?

          • Jeremy permalink
            October 19, 2009 11:26 am

            David,

            I really don’t understand your leftist comments. How does one become a “leftist”? Is it hardcore support from the Democratic party or something like that? I seriously don’t understand the label. Left and right doesn’t compute for me… it’s all the same below the surface of rhetoric that’s spewed everyday. I guess that’s a whole other discussion… just a side note.

            Yes, clearly I believe that our foreign policy as a whole is inherently evil. I would make this argument regardless of what party is / was in office going back several decades, and in some cases almost a century.

            Our current discussion of support for the Mujahadeen is an example of why I think our policies are “evil”. I clearly showed that we didn’t need to fund terrorists to hold back the Soviet Union, and in fact the interview that I sourced openly says it was the funding of the terrorists that brought the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place. We pushed and poked the Soviets from right across their border with terrorists that we funded until there was an invasion, and then the media jumped all over Russia’s actions because they were misinformed about U.S. actions (at least most of the media was). I find supporting terrorists to be evil regardless of whether or not the Soviets were perceived to be a bigger evil of the time, hence an evil policy.

            Is there a particular area of our foreign policy, current or past, that you would like to focus on next?

            • October 19, 2009 12:24 pm

              “The Left” refers to a political movement which really began with the French Revolution and evolved from there over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries on into the 21st century.

              http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=144&type=issue

              If you don’t understand the Left then I strongly suggest you get acquainted with it because understanding, critiquing, and fighting the Left are some of the main activities of the Freedom Center (and therefore one of the main activities of NewsReal.)

              David Horowitz, the Freedom Center’s founder and president, was one of the founders of the New Left in the ’60s. He’s not a leftist anymore obviously (read his memoir Radical Son.) As a result many of us working or writing for the Freedom Center have similar backgrounds to him in that we’re often ex-leftists.

              Many of the arguments and ideas you articulate have their origins in leftist thinkers. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re all wrong, bad, or can be automatically dismissed. (To do so would be an ad hominem logical fallacy.) It’s just a fact that’s worth being kept in mind because a failure to grasp the roles the Left and the Right have played over the course of history can make one a bit confused in interpreting historical events.

              If you don’t understand Left and Right — and I do — then any discussions we’d have about foreign policy would be like two people talking in different languages.

              • Jeremy permalink
                October 19, 2009 2:00 pm

                David,

                Don’t get me wrong… I understand the difference between left and right. I don’t understand how someone could / should be called a Leftist because of their views on supporting terrorism. If you really break it down that’s all I’ve been talking about here… various instances where we funded the same terror that we now claim to be fighting. That’s not a left or right argument at all, which is why I become confused when you the term “Leftist” towards me.

                I recall you bringing up Noam Chomsky in past conversations. What a joke… I hope you were joking at least. I have ripped Noam a new one in debates with others and I find it hilarious that you would openly use names and labels against someone you barely know in a debate. Do you really think you know where my ideas and positions come from? Can you really tie them back to a Leftist agenda? Have at it then, David.

                “If you don’t understand the Left then I strongly suggest you get acquainted with it because understanding, critiquing, and fighting the Left are some of the main activities of the Freedom Center (and therefore one of the main activities of NewsReal.)”

                No thanks… not looking to help out the “Freedom Center”… I’ve stepped out of the whole “left / right” debate a long time ago. I’m not here to attack the left unlike you. It’s clear that this false debate is your area of focus. I understand what makes someone appear as liberal or conservative according to mainstream belief, but that really means nothing. I have news for you… you are fighting yourself because the left and right are bought and paid for by the same global corporate and banking interests… look at Obama vs. McCain for crying out loud! The left vs. the right is a false choice. I could vote for a Democrat, Republican, or any other party any day of the week based on their personal values, personal history, and allegiance to the Constitution… not by party affiliation or labeling by the media. This is why I support Ron Paul, because of who he is and what he stands for… not because of any party or other distractions put forth by mainstream outlets.

                “It’s just a fact that’s worth being kept in mind because a failure to grasp the roles the Left and the Right have played over the course of history can make one a bit confused in interpreting historical events.”

                One would have to remove left and right from the equation when studying history actually, unless you want to be biased of course.

                “If you don’t understand Left and Right — and I do — then any discussions we’d have about foreign policy would be like two people talking in different languages.”

                David, we’re already talking two different languages. You speak mainstream talking points and beliefs, which is a constant battle between left vs. right. I pulled myself from this realm and began talking a new language many years ago because I was sick and tired of listening to baby talk and contradictions in the news. It was time for me to start really thinking about complex issues, and it was very clear that the mainstream news was not providing any answers, and in fact were caught in a lot of lies and distortions along the way.

                David, I feel bad for you and many others that are caught in the same mindset.

                Good luck to you and your attacks on the Left. I hope you succeed and show those Leftist bastards who the boss really is… the RIGHT!

                Hopefully we will continue to fund Al Qaeda linked groups to attack Iran because we all know how much safer Israel is with another armed and trained group of extremists in the region. Oh well, anything to get the big bad Iran, right? Oh wait… Israel funds Jundallah too?! I bet you won’t ever hear that ever in your chronicles against those Leftist commie scumbags.

                You really gave me a good laugh with your last post. I couldn’t help but get cynical… please don’t get too upset and ban me like your previous threats.

                • October 19, 2009 2:16 pm

                  What motivates you to spend your time writing these comments on this message boards debating me like this?

                • October 19, 2009 2:20 pm

                  Oh and BTW:
                  http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/19/can-one-be-informed-on-foreign-policy-without-understanding-left-and-right/

                  And I think you’re going to have a hard time backtracking from your original comment:
                  “How does one become a “leftist”? Is it hardcore support from the Democratic party or something like that? I seriously don’t understand the label. Left and right doesn’t compute for me…”

                  You confessed ignorance before. You said you didn’t understand this stuff. Now you say that you do but you just reject it. Whatever. Just further evidence of an ill-defined, intellectual incoherence in service of the idea that America is an evil force in the world.

                  • Jeremy permalink
                    October 20, 2009 6:53 am

                    Oh David, I have already replied to your silly article.

                    Why is it that I knew you would take my comment about not even entertaining left / right BS and run with it? You certainly surprised me with my own little article though… Wow!

                    Is it because you would rather stick to your false mindset? Is it because you don’t like the information I put forth?

                    Hmmmm….

                    I do enjoy the personal attacks David. Your true colors are coming out. I guess I should turn up volume and see how far you can really put your head in the sand.

                    David, I have replied to more of your ridiculous posts with more links and references. Have fun ignoring them.

                    (Get those Leftist bastards!!!)

                  • October 20, 2009 7:23 am

                    You continue to reveal yourself:
                    “Is it because you would rather stick to your false mindset?”

                    You seem to think that you have a monopoly on the Truth, that you have found “the Truth” in your ideology.

                    I’ve written about this too:
                    http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/01/hate-mail-of-the-day-understanding-the-crypto-religious-mentality-of-the-left/

                    You provide further evidence that Paulastinians such as yourself are possessed of the same religious approach to politics as the Left.

                    By all means keep going.

                • October 19, 2009 2:26 pm

                  “This is why I support Ron Paul, because of who he is and what he stands for… not because of any party or other distractions put forth by mainstream outlets.”

                  Ah, the confession.

                  Did you see this post I did on his embrace of 9/11 Truther Crackpots:
                  http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/08/crackpot-chronicles-van-jones-glenn-beck-ron-paul-rorschach-the-truthers-and-me-%e2%80%93-part-v/

                  There’s your hero for you. In bed with conspiracists.

                  • Jeremy permalink
                    October 20, 2009 8:17 am

                    David,

                    This is great! Keep the personal attacks coming… you are really coming out of your shell now!

                    I’ll keep posting data and you keep attacking me personally… this is going well.

                    Whatever you do, just make sure you keep ignoring information that goes against your belief system at all costs!

                    That’s the ticket!

  19. George Debski permalink
    October 19, 2009 4:38 pm

    Judy and David,

    I still stand by my comment about idiots and morons.

    I mentioned fortuitous circumstances which made Obama’s election possible:

    1) Bush. For whatever reason, Bush’s actions on 9/11 became, by the middle of 2006, viewed as a wild overreaction by a large majority of the population, fueled no doubt, by a large far left swing in the most of the media outlets.

    2) Republicans. Forgetting their fiscally conservative roots, they moved unabashedly to a decidedly Liberal view on spending, resulting, towards the end, in the beginning of really bad financial downfall.

    3) Political correctness. This and a large increase in reverse racism now made older white guys seem to lack the diversity needed to lead this nation.

    4) Obama. What luck for the Progressives finding a somewhat black man with no publicly known flaws, with great oratorical skills, with a sincere and gentle demeanor, with an progressive education and no money. And the icing on the cake? BA in political science from Columbia, JD from Harvard. What more could a good Progressive ask for?

    5) American People. The young ones, especially women, were in thrall just being near Obama. Some of his rallies become nothing more than rock concerts, with a superstar who could have done as well with a guitar and a song.

    There are MANY more, but these are just some examples.

    Since Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressives have been really working hard on fundamentally changing the country. This is way over 100 years. If this is a Progressive conspiracy, it’s a very bad example of one. On the other hand, if Progressives were idiots and morons, it would explain it……………..

    This new bunch will likely do some damage, but as usual, these idiots will screw it up, again, and be banished to the wastelands from which they came.

    Not that it will really matter in the end. America’s days of glory are gone. Nothing short of a real revolution will change that.

  20. October 20, 2009 8:24 am

    “This is great! Keep the personal attacks coming… you are really coming out of your shell now!”

    I haven’t attacked you personally. You’re the one that was justifying a cheap shot making fun of my last name on the other thread.

    • Jeremy permalink
      October 20, 2009 9:49 am

      “I haven’t attacked you personally. You’re the one that was justifying a cheap shot making fun of my last name on the other thread.”

      Wahh!!

      “You provide further evidence that Paulastinians such as yourself are possessed of the same religious approach to politics as the Left.”

      So, that’s not a cheap shot? You assume Ron Paul is my hero when I already clarified that he is not, I simply support the man as who I think should lead the country… then you call me a Paulastinian? What is that a play off of Paul and Palestine? David was this a clever way of you saying that I somehow support the destruction of Israel by supporting Ron Paul?

      David, you can’t seem to take what you dish out. Some guy made fun of your last name… boo hoo. You go around and make broad assumption and accusations all day… expect some of it to come back in the form of an insult.

      • In the know permalink
        October 28, 2009 2:04 pm

        you are pathetic…….

  21. Kirk permalink
    October 30, 2009 12:38 pm

    It seems to me that Mr. Swindle’s stance is mainly based in the theory that if it cannot be proven that it most certainly cannot exist. Ockham’s Razor supports that sort of thinking, but here in the world, outside of books and idealist parameters, humans have the ability to do whatever their will intends. What separates the powerful from the ordinary, is who you keep your company with and how much support comes from that. “Trained experts” as Mr. Swindle calls them, are trained through a system that is typically being challenged by those who tout conspiracy theories. The very term conspiracy, however, is to discredit the the standardized explanation. Agreed, some are less likely than others, however with so many inconsistencies and so much secrecy from the government, a supposedly public institution, and organizations around the world, it is perfectly natural to challenge the norm.

    Mr. Swindle, you seem to be at odds with anyone who would dare exercise their own right to question how things are. Be it a conspiracy or the status quo. I read and reread your posts and I understand your point of view, but you preaching your thoughts is exactly the same as your opposition. Ockham’s Razor is the theory that can be popularly stated as when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better, so says, the Franciscan Friar. But, you can quote anything and make yourself appear to be more intelligent then you actually are.

    When it comes to an incident such as 9/11, we’re not just talking about people who watch videos on youtube, but engineers, pilots, construction experts and historians who are “trained experts”. In the case of the assassination of JFK, two different Congressional Committees came to two different processes that lead the death of our President. I agree that in a pure plane of existence, then yes the simpler of two processes to the same conclusion would be the better. But, we’re not in a pure plane of existence, we’re in reality and the truth is hardly convenient. For if men were angels, there’d be no need for government. Being a need of government among citizenry calls for an equal and opposite force of governing toward those in charge and those who put them there.

    • October 30, 2009 6:30 pm

      “Mr. Swindle, you seem to be at odds with anyone who would dare exercise their own right to question how things are.”

      You’ve missed the whole point of my series. I don’t have a problem with those who QUESTION, I have a problem with those who KNOW.

      Those who promulgate the “inside job” conspiracy don’t question, they know the truth and they evangelize it with a religious mentality.

      No one who has come to these threads to challenge me has even bothered to address the central point that I’m making. I’m talking about a specific kind of mindset that is prone to seeing conspiracies everywhere. That you miss this point leads me to wonder if you’re possessed of it yourself. That would explain why you can’t see what I’m talking about. It’s difficult to see the beast when you’re in its stomach.

  22. guest permalink
    November 2, 2009 9:58 am

    To those who life at people like him, remember still waters run deep. Dr. Death’s do exist, and they are the deadliest. Think of a true killer rabbit from Monty Python. A perpetual hysteric focus on the siege who came from the sewer and has the scars to prove it. This is the real face of war.

    Fright!

  23. Jonathan permalink
    November 4, 2009 1:20 pm

    The conspiracy theory is the hammer for fitting round pegs into square holes, in a world full of liars and users. What keeps conspiracies alive are the people at the bottom of the funnel who have to find some way to make sense of the insanity going on around them.

    For example:

    “Alaska and Texas are full of oil. But we buy from everyone else. We can’t drill our own oil, because it pollutes, but we pay everyone else to ship oil across the oceans to us. We don’t care if they ruin their own countries – even though we all live on the same planet with the global warming…. can someone please explain to me what is going on? Drill Baby Drill! ”

    One of the surest ways to see that America is becoming a banana republic is the number of conspiracy theories. Would you care to guess about the relationship between corruption and conspiracy theories?

    Distrust is the NORM in our country since the leftist revolution of the 60s. There are lots we don’t call “conspiracy theories” but we react to them that way. The race hustling racket is one example. It’s based on the myth of the big hidden white suprematist conspiracy to keep the non-whites out. All whites are rich. All whites benefit from just being white. Being white is automatically better in America, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Not to go off on a tangent, but many whites would be amazed at what percolates on the other side of the racial divide in this country. And how prevalent and how entrenched it is.

    What you need to worry about more is when your GOVERNMENT starts talking about conspiracies against them. If the newspaper bailout happens, you’ll probably be reading them soon.

    The Soviets financed a Gulag Archipelago to fill with conspirators that the government saw around every corner. And the people of the USSR were filled with their own tales, plus tales supplied them by the state press. A constant supply of propaganda that would have been so wonderful to fill the shelves of the empty supermarkets with in the absence of bread.

  24. alois permalink
    November 10, 2009 2:34 pm

    “..trained experts..”

    ah yea, trained experts. Such as these guys over here:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  25. Conservadude permalink
    November 12, 2009 8:56 am

    Next you will be telling me that, Obama isn’t a secret muslim, the Illuminati Satanic conspiracy was made up by libertarian pranksters starting with a playboy article in 1968, and that Freemasons are decent folk who do amazing charity work.

  26. November 15, 2009 8:12 am

    Great job, I have linked even though the post is a bit old. If you are still looking for a #10:

    10. Conspiracist Crackpots all believe that initial (often jumbled and mistaken) media accounts were correct, and that later, when full details are released, the media aligns itself with the official account. The recent Fort Hood shootings are a classic example. Many early accounts stated that there were two or more killers involved in the rampage, but now we know it was the work of only one man. Conspiracy Crackpots still believe there were multiple shooters, and many of them claim Major Hasan is actually a patsy.

  27. Trebuchet permalink
    November 22, 2009 8:28 am

    I suppose you could say that whether something appears to be a conspiracy or not depends upon which end of the spear you’re holding. You have the “Done By’s” who never see what they do as conspiracy but as something that must be done to advance their agenda, and the “Done To’s” who of course see what has transpired as a conspiracy against them. I’m sure Cloward&Pivens did not see their strategy for collapsing the economic system of the US as a conspiracy but those who have suffered economical over the past 3 years are ready to hang em’ as grand conspirators. Also,I have seen the Movie “Watchmen” and as I remember everyone in the film thinks Roschach is demented but in the end it turns out he’s the one that’s right.

  28. steve permalink
    December 3, 2009 4:42 am

    i have decided you are aware of the “great work of ages” and are helping the elite. the way you structured this rant gives it away. you say we should supress and ridicule people out of the political process for having controversial views. you attack the “psychology” instead of the evidence. you say we shouldnt change our minds based on video EVIDENCE, but we should take elite and thier experts’official words as gospel PEOPLE. do the research yourself. you will see the obvious if you dig a little. make up your own mind.

Trackbacks

  1. Obama’s Ft. Hood Reaction is Far Worse than the Left’s Smear of Bush’s “Pet Goat” Moment « NewsReal Blog
  2. Comments of the Day: Getting Real About Third Parties in the Merry Old Land of Oz « NewsReal Blog
  3. Is Sarah Palin a Birther? No, But the Left Wishes She Was « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.