| | Regarding Robert Stinnett (now hanging his hat at -- surprise! -- the anti-government Independent Institute) and his massive Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, read this article:
A Cryptologic Veteran's Analysis of Day of Deceit -- A Book Review, by Phil Jacobsen.
However, citing a detailed refutation by a knowledgeable critic is pointless when it comes to persuading those ideologically committed to conspiratorialism. As I pointed out in this article on conspiratorialism, conspiracy theories are designed to be self-insulated from criticism. Employing a rationalistic methodology, they absorb any facts and reinterpret them in ways so as to uphold the conspiracy theories. No doubt that Mr. Jacobsen, author of the takedown of Mr. Stinnett, is either (a) a part of the Pearl Harbor cover-up conspiracy, or (b) a dupe of it, relying on evidence and documents cleverly manufactured or doctored by the Conspiracy. Never mind that Jacobsen is a professional cryptologist and security expert, while Stinnett is only a former photographer. Jacobsen we can dismiss out of hand, you see, because his expertise comes from within the Belly of the Beast -- as a veteran of the Naval Security Group, the National Security Agency, and other governmental intelligence organizations. To conspiratorialists, these affiliations, far from being credentials, are the Mark of Cain.
Likewise, let's ignore the fact that 9/11 conspiracy huckster David Griffin, cited by Mr. Humphrey as the most credible source on these matters, is not a structural engineer -- not even a scientist. He is a retired professor of the philosophy of religion and theology. Let's ignore the fact that the chief critics of his "theories" about the collapse of the Twin Towers are engineers and scientists, who have picked apart his "reasoning" and "facts" in painful detail. Let's also ignore the fact that the main defenders of these conspiracy cranks are readers with no particular expertise in the specialized research areas about which their heroes are making such claims, either.
While these wacky theories aren't particularly interesting, what is interesting is the fanatically determined eagerness of some people to believe them, in complete thumb-your-nose defiance of Occam's Razor. Given a choice between a simple, obvious explanation for some atrocious event (e.g., JFK's assassination; Pearl Harbor; Princess Di's or Marilyn Monroe's death; the 1949 weather-balloon crash in Roswell, New Mexico; the 9/11 attack by al Qaeda; etc.), or some bizarre, convoluted monstrosity of conspiratorial conjecture, certain people will pick the latter option every time.
A number of years ago, I researched a possible piece for Reader's Digest on the "ozone hole" controversy. At the time, it turned out that the only skeptical book on the subject -- The Holes in the Ozone Scare -- was co-authored by two leaders of Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy shop (neither a specialist in atmospheric chemistry or physics). The book was loaded with references to scientific papers and impressive-looking (to non-specialists) scientific charts and diagrams. All of these "facts" were aimed at refuting the idea that man-made CFCs were filtering into the upper atmosphere, breaking down, and releasing chlorine molecules that were depleting atmospheric ozone. In reality, claimed the LaRouchies, this was a gigantic hoax -- a devious plot by corporate "schemers" to make billions by scaring people to buy their new chemical products, which would replace Freon as a refrigerant.
Several weeks on the road interviewing the atmospheric scientists who had been conducting the actual measurements of CFCs in the upper atmosphere, and looking at the factual documentation for the CFC theory of ozone depletion, demonstrated to me just how easily non-specialists could be duped by pseudo-scientists with an ideological axe to grind.
In fact, I recommend The Holes in the Ozone Scare as a classic example of junk science offered up to ordinary readers in support of a conspiracy theory. I guarantee that if you know little or nothing about the science of upper-atmospheric chemistry and physics, you will be impressed by this book's marshaling of "scientific facts." You will have no way of knowing how it twists facts and scientific papers at every turn. It is an archetype of the kind of claptrap published by ideologically motivated conspiratorialists in support of their wild "theories."
Good scientists don't harbor predispositions, ideological or otherwise, to have research conclusions turn out in a particular way. But conspiratorialists are not good scientists.
Just as the LaRouchies have ideological motives for hating the U.S. government, so do many libertarians and anarchists. Some are determined to portray U.S. government officials as cold-bloodedly willing to have thousands of their fellow Americans murdered, simply for power-grabbing purposes. As "noninterventionists," anarcho-conspiratorialists also are predisposed to undermine any possible motive for the use of U.S. military power abroad.
Thus, foreign enemies simply could not be responsible for Pearl Harbor and 9/11; those events had to be provoked and/or orchestrated, with perfect precision and in total secrecy, by U.S. officials -- the same government bureaucrats that libertarians and anarchists otherwise claim are completely incapable of doing anything competently.
This, incidentally, is the most ludicrous inconsistency of their position. Government, they claim, is utterly and completely incompetent when it tries to do good. However, when it tries to do evil, they depict it as proceeding with diabolical cunning and infallibility. To conspiratorial mentalities, ginormous, Byzantine governmental machinations, involving thousands of plotters performing with flawless, well-timed precision, are infinitely more credible than the simplest, most obvious explanations for atrocious events: stupidity, incompetence, venality, lack of preparation -- or the calculated actions of non-governmental culprits.
You see, to blame Pearl Harbor on the Japanese would present a persuasive rationale for America to declare war on the Axis powers. Similarly, to blame 9/11 on al Qaeda would present a persuasive rationale for America to invade Afghanistan in pursuit of and retaliation against the terrorists. Both events also provide a general rationale for the existence of a U.S. military -- which is anathema to anarchists.
Far better, then, that America absorb, without response, direct military attacks that butcher thousands of its citizens, rather than possess or employ its own military in national defense.
And far better that we blame America -- not foreign powers -- for instigating such attacks, so that we can thereby dismiss any argument for a strong military response to military assaults against us.
[Edited for typos.]
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 12/08, 6:38pm)
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 12/08, 8:02pm)
|
|
