Conspiracies!

Written by Dean Esmay
Published May 08, 2003
page 1 | 2

In short: Conspiracy theorists are not stupid, or intentionally deceitful. They've simply fallen prey to a subtle form of madness.

So, how can you spot a conspiracy theorist? Usually, you'll see a large and complicated array of facts and events that seem to be connected by one convenient explanation.

Also, certain groups are likely to come up. The Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the CIA, the Zionists, the Freemasons, the Catholic Church and/or the Pope, the United Nations, the British Royal Family, and the Rockefeller family seem to be the most commonly mentioned nowadays. Also look for mentions of fictional groups like the Council of 13 or the Committee of 300, or long-dead groups like the Knights Templars or the Bavarian Illuminati.

But there's one tipoff that almost never fails: the belief in shadowy figures who are secretly controlling things, or "pulling the puppet strings." Conspiracy theorists usually believe that mostly-unseen characters are controlling world events, and have been for some time. It's that shadowy unknown, the secret agenda, that's your biggest tipoff.

Yes, in the real world, secrets are kept. Powerful people commit crimes that they try to cover up. Intelligence agencies do things we don't always know about and may not always approve of. All of that is true. But when you hear stories implying that countless seemingly unrelated things can be explained by the workings of one powerful group, you've got a big, fat, neon-red flag there. Watch for it.

I find that learning about conspiracy theories is a lot of fun. If you want a fast start on learning about some of the more popular conspiracy theories, you should check out the Conspiracy Archive, which I got from the lovely and brilliant Sasha. It's a fantastic collection of material, with copious links to still more.

As you read, you'll find that some conspiracy theories are hilarious. Others are beautiful for their seductive logic. Sometimes, you may even laugh nervously and think, "Oh yeah, I kind of used to believe something like that, didn't I?"

Don't worry about that last one. It just means you're an open-minded human who probably has a healthy capacity for drawing inferences. Laugh at yourself! And at what fools these mortals be.

One thing you may notice on Dean's World: I like poking fun at conspiracy theories. I love to read about, talk about, and joke about them. But if you've ever seen me talk in conspiracy-minded tones, please know this: I'm kidding.

Or that's what I'd like you to think, anyway...

---

By the way, the best book on the conspiracy mindset I've ever read is Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

And if you want to understand my reference to "Inference," a terrific book is Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics which even for people who generally dislike comics will find a fascinating and entertaining read. It's not about conspiracies, but its entire section on inference is alone worth reading the book.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Conspiracies!
Published: May 08, 2003
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Books: Nonfiction, Books: History, Books: Comics and Graphic Novels
Writer: Dean Esmay
Dean Esmay's BC Writer page
Dean Esmay's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Dean Esmay
Books: Nonfiction
Books: History
Books: Comics and Graphic Novels
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — May 9, 2003 @ 00:29AM — mike

An even better book is Richard Hofstader's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674654617/qid=1052454449/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5030864-2811140?v=glance&s=books

#2 — May 9, 2003 @ 00:36AM — Dean Esmay [URL]

Everything I've read about Hofstader's book indicates that, while good, it suffers from the fatal flaw of blaming all paranoia and conspiracy-minded thinking on the radical right, and lets radical left-wing conspirators almost completely off the hook.

Pipes' book offers a riveting analysis of both far-left and far-right conspiracy groups. Furthermore, it's far more up to date.

#3 — May 9, 2003 @ 05:35AM — Temple Stark [URL]

Isn't this better under Etc. or Politics. Is there such a category? It is well written but seems to have nothing to do with books except one reference at the end. Ah well. I'm just reacquainting myself with this site.

#4 — May 9, 2003 @ 11:17AM — mike

No, Hofstader, first of all, was writing in the immediate aftermath of the McCarthy era, when right wing conspiracy thinking was riding high, so that is what he focused on.

But he also cited the Populists, a left wing movement of the 1880s and 90s, for its conspiracy thinking. Had he lived longer than he did, he very possibly would have become a neoconservative, since he ran with the Commentary crowd in its more liberal days.

The real problem with Hofstader is that the historical precedents he cited were not as conspiracy minded as he thought.
Scholarship has discounted his interpretation of these movements; but his charecterizations of the "paranoid style" are as relevant as ever. As a leftist (with libertarian tendencies) who's always fighting with left conspiracy thinkers--excuse me, "thinkers," I think he was spot on, as the British say.

You can actually retrieve the original essay the book was based on by Googling it; it's well worth reading.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/5148)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments