It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some partsof the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks,including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law
What causes such theories to arise and spread? Are they important and perhaps even threatening, or merely trivial and even amusing? What can and should governmentdo about them? We aim here to sketch some psychological and social mechanisms thatproduce, sustain, and spread these theories; to show that some of them are quite importantand should be taken seriously; and to offer suggestions for governmental responses, bothas a matter of policy and as a matter of law.
Consider, for example, the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus; that the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by aU.S. military missile; that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud; that theTrilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy; that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents; that the plane crashthat killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineeredby Republican politicians; that the moon landing was staged and never actually occurred
Within the set of false conspiracy theories, we also limit our focus to potentially harmful theories. Not all false conspiracy theories are harmful; consider the false conspiracy theory, held by many of the younger members of our society, that a secretgroup of elves, working in a remote location under the leadership of the mysterious“Santa Claus,” make and distribute presents on Christmas Eve. This theory is false, but isitself instilled through a widespread conspiracy of the powerful – parents – who conceal their role in the whole affair. (Consider too the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.) It is an open question whether most conspiracy theories are equally benign; we will suggest that some are not benign at all.
And indeed, there can be no doubt that some people who accept conspiracy theories are mentally ill and subject to delusions
Those who tend to think that Israel was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, and who speak with one another, will end up with a greater commitment to that belief. Group polarization occurs for reasons that parallel the mechanisms that produce cascades.
Informational influences play a large role. In any group with some initial inclination, the views of most people in the group will inevitably be skewed in the direction of that inclination.
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracytheories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
Consider the Oklahoma City bombing, whose perpetrators shared a complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government. Many who shared their beliefs did not act on them, but a few actors did, with terrifying consequences. James Fearon and others argue that technological change has driven down the costs of delivering attacks with weapons of mass destruction, to the point where even a smallgroup can pose a significant threat.
If so, and if only a tiny fraction of believers act ontheir beliefs, then as the total population with conspiratorial beliefs grows, it becomesnearly inevitable that action will ensue.
Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators,[
Originally posted by jazzguy
this has nothing to do with us and everything to do with them.
when an event occurs and is riddled in coverups and secrecy, people just want to make sense of it, its natural that conspiracy arises from its ashes. if the government and the alphabet agencies were more transparent then we wouldnt have conspiracies.
they have dug a hole for themselves, but that hole is so deep that they are stuck in it with no way of getting out.
all we have to do is shovel the dirt on top and bury themedit on 6-6-2012 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)
Philip Zelikow,the executive director of the 9/11 commission, says that “[t]he hardcore conspiracytheorists are totally committed. They’d have to repudiate much of their life identity inorder not to accept some of that stuff. That’s not our worry. Our worry is when thingsbecome infectious . . . . [t]hen this stuff can be deeply corrosivetopublic understanding.You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body.”
Likewise, when theNational Institute of Standards and Technology issued a fact sheet to disprove the theorythat the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition, thespokesman stated that “[w]e realize this fact sheet won’t convince those who hold to thealternative theories that our findings are sound. In fact, the fact sheet was never intendedfor them. It isf or the masses who have seen or heard the alternative theory claims andwant balance.”
The Good
Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a
- right to an education
- a right to a home
- a right to health care
- a right to protection against monopolies
Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects.
In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public… There is no liberty without dependency.
Here is some Bad
The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.
In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush's creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist, "Under existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions" and that "President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground." Sunstein scorned as "ludicrous" an argument from law professor George P. Fletcher, who believed that the Supreme Court would find Bush's military commissions without any legal basis.
And finally my (our) Concession
I'm really not sure what to do about this problem, at this point. I've considered the idea of getting a few email addresses of like minded people via U2U, and setting up a private email list where we can talk. If atheism continues to take over society to the degree that it seems to be, it is going to become increasingly difficult for us to find refuge from them, I fear.
His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyberbalkanization.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by alphabetaone
The 'good' thing he mentions is that we should 'celebrate tax day'?
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I've pointed out later on he does have a point in that the internet allows people to surround themselves only in conspiracy theories, hence if someone is inclined to believe a conspiracy, they will be much stonger in their beliefs posting on a foum like this which caters for that. I can see that as a point, but he then goes on to say that it isn't in the interest of the government to officially debunk conspiracies and then quotes NIST who argued no matter how much evidence is posted, the 'kooks won't buy it', hence a waste of time. But that is just an excuse.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I'm sure there are many 9/11 truthers who would change their opinion if the government conducted a proper investigation or released evidence they do hold, such as video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
Their excuse for not releasing the footage is that conspiracy theorists wouldn't change their mind (hence futile)when this in not true at all, I for one would be forced to requestion my opinion if they released the evidence.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
This whole article is an excuse to demonise 'conspiracy theories'
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
and prevent people from questioning the reality of the world around them,
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
and the US government has taken his message on board, shills already post on this forum and stuff like the NDAA being passed are evidence of that. They are planning to make propaganda legal against Americans, that is a direct attempt to combat the growing number of people reading and believing conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by kwakakev
Personally, I did not want to accept that 9/11 was an inside job and most people I talk to about don't either. I do want to understand this world so I can contribute in the most meaningful way so the government has a delima. It can lobotomise everyone in which the media is doing a great job and I expect more intrusive ways being investigated and sometime employeed. But in doing so it is reducing the countries potential as many great minds are turned to mud. So what is the national intrests, a small factional power base maintaining the status quo or education and support to resolve some very difficult and systemic problems?
As for trying to link terrorism into this debate, we all have self determination which is a protected right under UN guidelines. As such, some people will contine to do stupid things while many do great things. If we are to lobotomised then all we will do is nothing. When looking at the numbers of how many are dying because of these protected secrets and how these state sponcered actions have been undermining rather than protecting democratic princibles, the terrorist threat proposed is like comparing an insect bite to an elephant stamped.
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Wonderer2012
Great point about being smart enough to use the machines but not smart enough to ask questions, I did go a bit over the top there. I can appreciate what you are saying about Obama, he has tried to improve the social conditions within the country but just getting wiped out with the special intrest lobbying. As for Syria I am leaning more towards the Russian Navy base as for what is holding the line. A big part of the problem is how money is used to resolve conflicts of intrest.
One thing I am learning regarding TPTB is that they're not all united. There are factions and sides with their own interests, it's not just as simple as imagining one big group of 'Illuminati' working together, there are many agendas and side issues that make the whole thing one big giant mess to even begin to understand!