Conspiracy Theorists Hurt Liberty Movement
This post has been a long time coming. After the recent Piers Morgan / Alex Jones interview (the first two minutes of which were fine but then Alex went off on so many topics that he lost all credibility), I decided it was finally time to put fingers to keyboard. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to be what some would derogatorily call a conspiracy theorist. While I still believe that many things did not go as they were officially reported, I no longer base my life around that. I've learned to step back and look at the system which allows such things and I feel my efforts are more effective because of it.
On Conspiracy in General
Skeptical definition: Someone who believes that humans have ulterior motives and the public will believe big lies - aka a realist.
Common parlance definition: Someone who looks for patterns everywhere, who believes an elite is out to get him or her, who doesn't understand coincidence and confluence of agendas, who, being unable to explain a certain phenomena, pieces together a malignant agenda to explain it.
I find both of these definitions to be accurate. The human brain is a pattern recognizer and it's unfortunately too easy to start going down the rabbit hole of "everything's a conspiracy" once you believe that certain things are conspiracies. Does that mean that you shouldn't believe in conspiracies? No, of course not. Some conspiracies (both in the literal and malignant agenda uses of the word) actually do happen. Gulf of Tonkin. Spanish-American War. Tuskeegee Experiments. The list goes on.
No, I'm going to make a much more radical assertion. For the cause of liberty... it doesn't matter.
Common parlance definition: Someone who looks for patterns everywhere, who believes an elite is out to get him or her, who doesn't understand coincidence and confluence of agendas, who, being unable to explain a certain phenomena, pieces together a malignant agenda to explain it.
I find both of these definitions to be accurate. The human brain is a pattern recognizer and it's unfortunately too easy to start going down the rabbit hole of "everything's a conspiracy" once you believe that certain things are conspiracies. Does that mean that you shouldn't believe in conspiracies? No, of course not. Some conspiracies (both in the literal and malignant agenda uses of the word) actually do happen. Gulf of Tonkin. Spanish-American War. Tuskeegee Experiments. The list goes on.
No, I'm going to make a much more radical assertion. For the cause of liberty... it doesn't matter.
People don't Care - You'll Never Reach Critical Mass
|
This is the hardest truth for conspiracy theorists to hear. Most people, even if you provided 100% proof that, say, 9/11 was an inside job - most people would still reject it or come up with a justification for it ex post facto. Don't believe me? Look to history.
After it came out that Hearst and Pulitzer were fabricating most (all?) of the initial justifications for the Spanish-American war, the war continued because, hey, you've got to support the troops, right? But that was back then, before the alternative media could check things out. Sure... except it doesn't matter. Gulf war 2. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 whether you believe it was a controlled demolition or you believe the official account. Everyone in the know said that the weapons of mass destruction thing was bullshit but that wasn't the message the American population was getting - except through alternative media which was, by and large, reporting that the war was bullshit. After the war started and the U.S. couldn't find these non-existent weapons, the justification changed to "getting rid of Saddam" or "spreading democracy." While there were some war protests (which magically stopped after Obama got into office), the media underreported this and most Americans, again, didn't care - even those getting their information from the alternative media. They continued to pay taxes and implicitly or explicitly support the government. One could argue that there wasn't enough of a mass of people to risk openly defying the state. I'll skeptically accept that argument, but I think waiting for a critical mass is a waste of time. |
Why not just keep quiet about it?
To establish a statute of limitations. In a case like this, you only have one year from the time you learn about the problem to file suit. So PG&E figures "We'll let the cat out of the bag. Tell them the water isn't perfect. If we can ride out the year with no one suing we'll be in the clear forever." Just wait long enough and the public will forget any original justifications. (And it gives Ed Masry an excuse to say the phrase "Bundt Cake.")
|
Most want to be Safe and be Ruled
Few will openly admit that, but their actions and reactions reveal their values. Look at the Sandy Hook incident. Before the bodies were even buried, people reacted on pure emotions about "protecting the children." Never mind the statistics, never mind the root causes. What matters is getting back a feeling of normalcy and safety even if they are just feelings and not actual safety.
Ever since I've embraced Haidt, things have become so much more clear. Humans, by and large, value safety more than they do liberty. Yes, even libertarians. Go to a libertarian board and talk about risking life and limb (this, or just about anything here) to make sure rights are respected and watch support evaporate. They'll come up with any number of excuses, including using the convenient Non-Aggression Principle, but mostly they just value their own life and its comforts more than they value liberty in the abstract.
More controversially, I'll assert that many people want to be ruled - that is they want rules set by others which make society stable and where they can abdicate responsibility for their own lives. It doesn't matter if these rules work, it just matters that they exist and can be used like a security blanket. Again look at Sandy Hook. The rules people are proposing will do little to nothing to stop mass murders like that from happening. The honest truth is that there is little that can be done to stop people from killing others but people keep refusing to accept that. Then the NRA comes on and wants to further abdicate responsibility by pushing for armed guards rather than armed citizens generally.
Ever since I've embraced Haidt, things have become so much more clear. Humans, by and large, value safety more than they do liberty. Yes, even libertarians. Go to a libertarian board and talk about risking life and limb (this, or just about anything here) to make sure rights are respected and watch support evaporate. They'll come up with any number of excuses, including using the convenient Non-Aggression Principle, but mostly they just value their own life and its comforts more than they value liberty in the abstract.
More controversially, I'll assert that many people want to be ruled - that is they want rules set by others which make society stable and where they can abdicate responsibility for their own lives. It doesn't matter if these rules work, it just matters that they exist and can be used like a security blanket. Again look at Sandy Hook. The rules people are proposing will do little to nothing to stop mass murders like that from happening. The honest truth is that there is little that can be done to stop people from killing others but people keep refusing to accept that. Then the NRA comes on and wants to further abdicate responsibility by pushing for armed guards rather than armed citizens generally.
Freedom incurs responsibility; that is why so many men fear it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Some people value authority. Most identify with the institutions of the state. To point out that elements of the state are the ones causing the problem is to dethrone their god from a position of omni-benevolence. If people are willing to even see that government isn't all good, then it comes down to a few "bad apples" and never the system. Nowhere is this more clear than when examining police. There are a lot of bad police officers and a lot of good police officers but the system tends to get rid of the good officers by burning them out, running them out, or converting them into bad officers. No single person has an agenda to make bad police officers, but it's a dynamic of the system.
The liberty movement is always fighting a defensive war against the more powerful safety dimension and the loyalty and authority dimensions. Unfortunately, all that's required is another Sandy Hook to undo years of work in the liberty movement. Would the government kill children if it would satisfy their goals? Absolutely. They do it now and call the children insurgents. Would private interests do the same? Absolutely. Do they need to? Probably not. Eventually someone will mass murder and the ratchet will turn another notch toward safety and authority over liberty.
The liberty movement is always fighting a defensive war against the more powerful safety dimension and the loyalty and authority dimensions. Unfortunately, all that's required is another Sandy Hook to undo years of work in the liberty movement. Would the government kill children if it would satisfy their goals? Absolutely. They do it now and call the children insurgents. Would private interests do the same? Absolutely. Do they need to? Probably not. Eventually someone will mass murder and the ratchet will turn another notch toward safety and authority over liberty.
Being Labelled as Crazy Hurts your Message
Since in-group/out-group loyalties and identification with the group play such important roles in human action, it's easy for people who are outside the "accepted range of debate" to be seen as an outsider and vilified. The messenger tends to color the message. Both Adolph Hitler and Ted Kaczynski were correct about some things, but good luck bringing up any of those things once others find out the mouth it originated from.
When humans are faced with an uncomfortable fact, many will try to avoid that fact because cognitive dissonance hurts. The path of least resistance and the first step of coping with loss is denial. It doesn't matter if that loss is a loss of identity, a loss of stability of beliefs, or a loss of an actual person to death - the mind treats it the same way. So long as the cost of denial is less than the cost of acceptance, denial will continue.
There are many ways those who want to shut down your message can do so. Why give them more duct tape to cover your mouth with?
When humans are faced with an uncomfortable fact, many will try to avoid that fact because cognitive dissonance hurts. The path of least resistance and the first step of coping with loss is denial. It doesn't matter if that loss is a loss of identity, a loss of stability of beliefs, or a loss of an actual person to death - the mind treats it the same way. So long as the cost of denial is less than the cost of acceptance, denial will continue.
There are many ways those who want to shut down your message can do so. Why give them more duct tape to cover your mouth with?
The Solution is Largely the Same Either Way
If the problem is a system which allows evil even if it's not run by people with evil intentions, then the solutions are largely the same regardless of formal conspiracy or not. Let's take 9/11 as an example.
If it was caused by government, then the government, or elements within it, have too much power and too much control over the dissemination of information. People believe the government because it's "the people" and their "sports team." The government needs to be scaled back and we need a more transparent society with more decentralized checks and balances and people need to stop identifying with it so much.
If it was caused by pissed off Saudis, then the government is too much like an empire and is sticking its nose into others businesses too much (unless you buy the "hate us for our freedom" joke). People believe that we need our military to go overseas because "HOO HAH 'murica kicks ass!." Those are our soldiers and we have to support our troops! The government needs to be scaled back and we need a more transparent society with more decentralized checks and balances and people need to stop identifying with it so much.
I don't know how to solve that, but I assert that's where the effort should be spent. Would it be effective if people aren't willing to take responsibility for themselves? Again, I don't know. If too few do, then I think humanity is doomed to have "evil" rulers for the foreseeable future.
The other option is for liberty-minded people to shield themselves from the effects of such rulers. Concentrating liberty lovers in one area, like The Free State Project is doing, is a good step. I have my doubts that that specific project will succeed in their broader goal, but am trying to remain optimistic. Or the liberty-minded can withdraw agorist style. Or they can steal a dirty nuke and threaten Washington if Washington won't leave them alone.
If it was caused by government, then the government, or elements within it, have too much power and too much control over the dissemination of information. People believe the government because it's "the people" and their "sports team." The government needs to be scaled back and we need a more transparent society with more decentralized checks and balances and people need to stop identifying with it so much.
If it was caused by pissed off Saudis, then the government is too much like an empire and is sticking its nose into others businesses too much (unless you buy the "hate us for our freedom" joke). People believe that we need our military to go overseas because "HOO HAH 'murica kicks ass!." Those are our soldiers and we have to support our troops! The government needs to be scaled back and we need a more transparent society with more decentralized checks and balances and people need to stop identifying with it so much.
I don't know how to solve that, but I assert that's where the effort should be spent. Would it be effective if people aren't willing to take responsibility for themselves? Again, I don't know. If too few do, then I think humanity is doomed to have "evil" rulers for the foreseeable future.
The other option is for liberty-minded people to shield themselves from the effects of such rulers. Concentrating liberty lovers in one area, like The Free State Project is doing, is a good step. I have my doubts that that specific project will succeed in their broader goal, but am trying to remain optimistic. Or the liberty-minded can withdraw agorist style. Or they can steal a dirty nuke and threaten Washington if Washington won't leave them alone.
Own your Values
Ask yourself: do you spend your time researching conspiracies and shouting them to the world because you're signaling to others in your in-group that you're a loyal member of an exclusive in-group or do you do it because you want to get people to become aware and rise up? If you're doing it for the latter reason, do you realize how human psychology makes your efforts largely ineffective?
I mean, if you really believe that, say Larry Silverstein had a part in 9/11 then just kill him. Even a hit of a big name you're only talking five figures for a competent hitman. Since most won't believe conspiracy theories anyway, I'm sure you could find a way to make it look like suicide. Then drop some notes off at Bohemian Grove letting the other elites know you're onto their game. That seems way more effective (and efficient) than scouring the net every day and yelling into the echo chamber.
If other elites would just fill the vacuum then, congratulations, you've admitted it's a systemic problem.
I mean, if you really believe that, say Larry Silverstein had a part in 9/11 then just kill him. Even a hit of a big name you're only talking five figures for a competent hitman. Since most won't believe conspiracy theories anyway, I'm sure you could find a way to make it look like suicide. Then drop some notes off at Bohemian Grove letting the other elites know you're onto their game. That seems way more effective (and efficient) than scouring the net every day and yelling into the echo chamber.
If other elites would just fill the vacuum then, congratulations, you've admitted it's a systemic problem.
Conclusion
|
Most people honestly don't know what happened for a lot of these events and it's the height of hubris to claim knowledge. Regarding 9/11, I'll never know because I didn't observe events directly enough and I do not have enough of an understanding of physics and material science and architecture to solidly draw conclusions.
Do I have enough evidence to say that governments are willing to do things like that? I think I do, thus I rely only on physical evidence. Do I have enough evidence to say that governments could keep it a secret? I assert they don't have to because most people will toe the line anyways and dismiss contrary voices as crackpots. What I'm no longer willing to do is drive myself crazy unless I'm willing to go back to college to study these things. And what would be the point of that? For some suspected self-gratification if I find out it's an inside job? As I've asserted above, others aren't going to jump on board so long as it's easier to dismiss something than it is to accept it. If you want to burn yourselves out and remain ineffective, that's fine - it's your prerogative. But you are doing the liberty movement no favors and, as the post-Alex Jones interview news headlines showed, may be turning people away from it. |
Did this building fall from fire, from nanothermite, or from loneliness?
|
