‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy

[pduchesne]

Don't shoot the messenger. I just thoughts was interesting:
Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. | Robbie Sutton - Academia.edu

 

[Burnt State]

Well I suppose it's interesting if you think the author of the article, who routinely likes o call for the execution of certain journalists, who suggests Israel is responsible for the JFK assassination (yes, he's a Barry Chamish supporter), and likes to dabble in Holocaust denial and supports well known denial folk, has any merit. I find 'academics' like Barrett, who seek the fame of controversey by being a self-proclaimed Holocaust revisionist and likes to travel to Iran for their annual 'down with the Holocaust myth' conference, to be mostly reprehensible. I don't think there's much there that's worthwhile unless you are looking for a pathway to anti-semetism and possibly white nationalism. Anyone who hints Zundel is on to something regarding the Holocaust is just not worth reading. Barrett's voice and his truthjihad that persistenly cozies up to racism that he disguises as an innocent 'what's wrong with holocaust revisionism' is really the spawning ground of hatred and tries to legitimize worldviews that were locked up long ago.

 

[pduchesne]

You're right, that guy is a douche bag dumbass. I changed the link to someone more respectable. Sorry.

 

[Charlie Prime]

PD, if you're interested in the psychology of Conspiracy Theorists, check out the work of Tjeerd Andringa. He is a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

He explains how socialists desperately seek the simplicity authoritarianism offers because they fear complexity, whereas conspiracy theorists tend to be more comfortable with it.

http://www.geopoliticsandcognition.com

Also, if you've not seen this video where psychologists and psychiatrists explain the hatred and anger people exhibit toward 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it's worth a look.

 

[pduchesne]

PD, if you're interested in the psychology of Conspiracy Theorists, check out the work of Tjeerd Andringa. He is a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

He explains how socialists desperately seek the simplicity authoritarianism offers because they fear complexity, whereas conspiracy theorists tend to be more comfortable with it.

http://www.geopoliticsandcognition.com

Also, if you've not seen this video where psychologists and psychiatrists explain the hatred and anger people exhibit toward 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it's worth a look.

Thought provoking. I will admit I never looked into the 9/11 conspiracy. I don't even know the premise. I'll now at least look into it. Thanks.

 

[Charlie Prime]

I'll now at least look into it.

I advise against looking into 9/11. You would have to sort though a huge mess of 95% silliness and nut-jobbery mixed with calculated disinformation to discern out that 5% of truth.

After investing thousands of hours of reading, you would wind up in the same situation JFK assassination research is after 50 years; certainty that the official story is a lie, but no answer on exactly how, exactly why, and exactly who did it.

 

[RU_Insane]

The study doesn't use the words "sane" or "crazy", and the paper wasn't even quoted right. The only quote remotely related to that is where it says "conventionalists" were more likely to use insults than "conspirasists". That has no bearing on how sane someone is. This website is a great resource for debunking common 9/11 Truther myths, and is one of the best for promoting critical thought. Source: I'm a former 9/11 Truther.

PD, if you're interested in the psychology of Conspiracy Theorists, check out the work of Tjeerd Andringa. He is a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

He explains how socialists desperately seek the simplicity authoritarianism offers because they fear complexity, whereas conspiracy theorists tend to be more comfortable with it.

http://www.geopoliticsandcognition.com

Ironically, the professor's statements on socialism are themselves grossly simplified and simply false. The body of socialist literature is one of the more nuanced in political philosophy. It's strange to expect, for a philosophy which bred a diverse range of ideologies from Marxist-Leninism to Anarcho-Communism, that its adherents should fear complexity, when in fact, there were multiple grassroots movements which developed into highly organized societies. (Catalonia in Spain 1936-8 and Free Territory of Ukraine are two major examples). Socialism isn't a monolithic ideology. Even before we go into specifics, it's generally divided into two major camps: State and Non-State socialism. You might be familiar with the first.

 

[pduchesne]

I advise against looking into 9/11. You would have to sort though a huge mess of 95% silliness and nut-jobbery mixed with calculated disinformation to discern out that 5% of truth.

After investing thousands of hours of reading, you would wind up in the same situation JFK assassination research is after 50 years; certainty that the official story is a lie, but no answer on exactly how, exactly why, and exactly who did it.

I can see you are correct. Generally, paranormal events and conspiracies are fairly easy to explain with just a little objectivity, and judicious use of Occam's razor. Even if I can't win a debate, I can usually satisfy my own curiosity for most things. The JFK assassination is one I can' t figure out, and can't even boil down to a most likely scenario - very frustrating. I don't need to add 911 to that right now, though I admit I'm slightly more open minded about it.

 

[pduchesne]

The study doesn't use the words "sane" or "crazy", and the paper wasn't even quoted right. The only quote remotely related to that is where it says "conventionalists" were more likely to use insults than "conspirasists". That has no bearing on how sane someone is. This website is a great resource for debunking common 9/11 Truther myths, and is one of the best for promoting critical thought. Source: I'm a former 9/11 Truther.

The title is misleading because I originally linked to an opinion article about this report. I usually don't make that mistake, but I was in a hurry and being lazy. When the offensiveness of the author was pointed out to me I changed the link, and inadvertently offended the ladies, for which I am sorry. Google the title if you are curious, but IMO the guy is a waste of skin.

 

[pduchesne]

Ironically, the professor's statements on socialism are themselves grossly simplified and simply false. The body of socialist literature is one of the more nuanced in political philosophy. It's strange to expect, for a philosophy which bred a diverse range of ideologies from Marxist-Leninism to Anarcho-Communism, that its adherents should fear complexity, when in fact, there were multiple grassroots movements which developed into highly organized societies. (Catalonia in Spain 1936-8 and Free Territory of Ukraine are two major examples). Socialism isn't a monolithic ideology. Even before we go into specifics, it's generally divided into two major camps: State and Non-State socialism. You might be familiar with the first.

You see, this is how it gets started. Teasing, but you gotta "read the room", so to speak. I'll resist for now, but if you want to see how civilized adversaries debate politics and religion, read this.
I don't think we could be as smart as these guys, but we could choose to be that civil.

P.S. I've seen your posts so I known you are civil, I'm speaking generally.

 

[RU_Insane]

I can speak tersely but I try to keep a civil attitude. Thanks.

The title is misleading because I originally linked to an opinion article about this report. I usually don't make that mistake, but I was in a hurry and being lazy. When the offensiveness of the author was pointed out to me I changed the link, and inadvertently offended the ladies, for which I am sorry. Google the title if you are curious, but IMO the guy is a waste of skin.

I know you meant well. But for people who're reading the exchange, it's helpful to know what the study actually says.

 

[Charlie Prime]

The JFK assassination is one I can' t figure out, and can't even boil down to a most likely scenario - very frustrating.

If you're interested in JFK, here are a couple of good things recently published.

This week on Red Ice, Ole Dammegård did two hours. He sums it up nicely.

Red Ice Radio - Ole Dammegård - Hour 1 & 2 - The Death Squad Network Behind the JFK Assassination

If you want historical content, Richard Grove recently published this MASSIVE collection of interviews with Garrison, grassy knoll witnesses, and such on the Peace Revolution Podcast. Heyzuz Cristo, it took me two weeks to listen to the whole thing while I washed dishes and mowed my lawn.

PodOmatic | Podcast - The Peace Revolution Podcast ...go for Episode 80.

Here is the content of that episode:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here to download this episode.

(0m-1m) Judge Jim Garrison on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson

(1m-4m) President Lyndon B. Johnson casting doubt on the veracity of the Warren Commission Report, speaking with World Federalist Walter Cronkite, who worked for Prescott Bush’s people at CBS.

(4m-5m) Walter Cronkite describing the wound to the FRONT President Kennedy’s neck, declared as an entrance wound which exited his back; sampled from Evidence of Revision: JFK Assassination Rarities

(5m-7m) Robert F. Kennedy and RFK Jr. Disagree with Warren Commission

(7m-10m) The Latest News: RFK Jr. Skeptical of “Lone Gunman”

(10m-14m) Meet Lee Harvey Oswald, Sheep-Dipped Patsy by James Corbett, Episode 287

(14m-20m) sample clip from Judge Jim Garrison vs. Johnny Carson, January 31, 1968

(20m-22m) sample clip from JFK Assassination Debate with Mark Lane vs. Warren Commission Supporters/Participants, December 4, 1964

(22m-29m) sample clip from Forgotten Evidence: JFK Conspiracy, linking Nixon, Hoover, LBJ, and Mac Wallace to a meeting the night before the Assassination in Dallas

(29m-33m) sample clip from JFK Assassination Debate with Mark Lane vs. Warren Commission Supporters/Participants, December 4, 1964

(24m-28m) sample clip from Forgotten Evidence: JFK Conspiracy

(33m-37m) sample clip from JFK Assassination Debate with Mark Lane vs. Warren Commission Supporters/Participants, December 4, 1964

(37m-42m) sample clip from Forgotten Evidence: JFK Conspiracy

(42m-43m) Judge Jim Garrison closing speech from Forgotten Evidence

J. Edgar Hoover in the 1956 Elks Magazine, primary source for quotation on the monstrous conspiracy.

CIA Document 1035-960: COUNTERING CRITICISM OF THE WARREN REPORT

Documents relating to disposition of JFK casket

JFK Casket Buried at Sea: Map of Disposition of the Casket

Order to Destroy JFK’s Casket by Attorney General Katzenbach

Why JFK's Assassination Still Haunts America by Tim Kelly

JFK versus CIA by Tim Kelly

(4h35m-6h35m) Forgotten Evidence: JFK Conspiracy

(6h35-7h) Evidence of Revision: JFK Assassination Rarities (not part of “Evidence of Revision” series)

(7h-8h) Project Censored: JFK 50 interview with Mark Lane

(8h-9h30m) The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes 1992

(9h30m-12h5m) JFK Assassination Debate with Mark Lane, December 4, 1964

(12h5m-12h50m) Jim Garrison vs. Johnny Carson, January 31, 1968

(12h50m-14h20m) “Rush to Judgment” by Mark Lane, 1967

(14h20m-19h38m) L. Fletcher Prouty: The Secret Team / JFK Assassination