Handy chart for conspiracy theorists

Reading Time: 2 minutes121

Lazy and imitative journalists and academics like to bandy around the term “conspiracy theory.” It is a one-size-fits-all putdown. But those who are unafraid of the real world know that conspiracies happen, and not only on House of Cards.

Conspiracies are prosecuted every day in courthouses throughout the land. As for outfits like the FBI and the CIA, journalism’s job is to continuously forget all the abuses and outright illegalities perpetrated over the years by these institutions, and to treat their claims with respect and trust.

The use of “conspiracy theory” is highly selective. When powerless people say that the CIA is doing something like illegally entering others’ computers, they are conspiracy theorists. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says it, she’s…well, a senator condemning an illegal act by the Central Intelligence Agency.

***

Sometime back, we ran a piece here in response to an op-ed in the New York Times that poked fun at those of us who don’t trust everything the authorities say about the Boston Marathon bombing. (We’ve had a few more things to say on that subject, such as this and this.)

Now, we’re pleased to present a little graphic that our friends at SwayWhat put together to illustrate a point: 63 percent of Americans believe at least one thing that someone else has labeled a “conspiracy theory.” The question always is, who’s doing the labeling? Anything involving more than one person committing a crime and conspiring in secret to do it is a conspiracy. Therefore, anyone who posits that 19 hijackers were behind the 9/11 attack is in fact a “conspiracy theorist.”

Of course, what exercises The New York Times most is when ordinary citizens smell a conspiracy in some kind of governmental cover-up which the mainstream media has failed to explore. Despite evidence of previous U.S. government involvement in conspiracies and cover-ups galore (from Watergate to Iran-Contra), the mainstream media is predictably shocked when someone suggests it might be happening again.

Enjoy.

Powered by SavvyRoo

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

15 responses to “Handy chart for conspiracy theorists”

  1. Title

    […]check beneath, are some completely unrelated internet websites to ours, nonetheless, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[…]

  2. Title

    […]we came across a cool site that you may possibly love. Take a look for those who want[…]

  3. Title

    […]below you will locate the link to some internet sites that we feel you ought to visit[…]

  4. edwardrynearson says:

    “Conspiracy Theorist” is a well cultivated Ad Hominem

  5. Gnome de Pluehm says:

    Does there need be a formal agreement? Conspire means to “breathe together.” Perhaps it means only to be like minded; in that case political parties are conspiracies.

  6. BB says:

    When Calvin and Hobbes conspire to lure Susie to pass a tree where they can hide so they can pelt her with snowballs, that is a conspiracy, not a theory, but a fact.

  7. sean says:

    I just watched House of Cards and was looking to see if anybody (Russ) dignified the series with mentioning any of the parallels between Frank Underwood taking down President Walker and Bush Sr’s maneuverings beneath Nixon.

  8. abe says:

    “When powerless people say that the CIA is doing something like illegally entering others’ computers, they are conspiracy theorists. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says it, she’s…well, a senator condemning an illegal act by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

    Perhaps the difference is… evidence?

    • Aaron Acker says:

      No. The difference is, the common, ignorant masses wont believe “evidence” until it is spoken to them via their television set by someone they either like or have no bad opinion of. The evidence exists long before these people spout it to your ears.

  9. Orangutan. says:

    I think stolen elections, 9/11, the anthrax attacks, and even Sandy Hook and other school shootings should be looked into. False flag terrorism is an age old tactic and we should be aware of things like Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension employed by those in power.

  10. Billie says:

    Thank you, Mr. Baker.

    A very good point – indeed.

    FightGangStalking.com

  11. soularddave says:

    Exactly! I figure that I’m in good company when I insist on “facts” agreeing with and supporting one another in any given “story”.

  12. nicho says:

    But when you thin about it, it’s brilliant. Once you convince people that anyone who mentions a conspiracy is a nut, you can get away with the most egregious crap — often right in public. For example, the Koch Brothers and their co-conspirators held a well-publicized meeting recently in Palm Springs to plot the next step in their ongoing billionaires’ coup. While the meeting was well-publicized, the attendees and agenda — not to mention decisions — were secret. This is a conspiracy pure and simple, but if you were to suggest that certain things happening in the country were conspiracies, you’d be shouted down.