It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Divide and Conquer - Are many conspiracy theories conspiracies themselves?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:34 AM
We see it everyday. On the news, in discussions on this very website, in our personal lives, and in the rhetoric of our leaders, we witness the polarization of thought that splits societies right down the middle. Both sides have their champions, representatives, and charismatic mouthpieces. Every attempt to uncover - or even debate - truth and the form truth might take, whether it be in regard to the war on terror, flying saucers, or global warming, ends in polarization. In the end, little is learned, and nobody ends up any wiser or more willing to expand their thinking on the given issue at hand. For this reason I ask, "Could it be that some conspiracy theories themselves are an effort to divide the population for the purpose of ensuring a perpetual mutual, universal, pervasive inhibitory effect on the progress of truth?" Those of us who find conspiracies compelling or fascinating would like to fancy ourselves more "in the know" than mainstream society, but we still tend to crave - and even perpetuate - the same sort of polar, "good versus evil" (if you will) conceptualization of the primary actors involved in those conspiracies. We still partly hope for a truth that consists of "good guys and bad guys," because everything we have ever learned or experienced has conditioned us to view this as the ultimate structure of any major conflagration, be it military, political, or conspiratorial.

Consider the film "An Inconvenient Truth." This film takes all of the points raised about global warming as a phenomenon that might impact our lives, and attempts to drive them home. But who was the main spokesperson for this film? Al Gore. To many conservatives, Gore represents the epitome of the liberal political agenda, and a man who dragged the United States through what was nearly a constitutional crisis with the election recount in 2000. For many democrats and liberal voters, Gore represents their champion; someone who was cheated out of the presidency, and who now stands for righting the wrongs committed by the current administration. These feelings are years old now, but both sides still feel them strongly, as evidenced by the heated debates concerning these issues seen right here on ATS. Is it possible that this is a means of polarizing the global warming debate along partisan lines, resulting in no change whatsoever in opinion or likelihood of action? The film claims to promote increased awareness of the global warming phenomenon, yet the majority of the public already concerned about global warming would appear to be largely democrats and liberals to begin with. Why not have a more conservative spokesperson? Does Gore's association with the film make conservatives less likely to take the film seriously as anything other than liberal propaganda?

Consider 9-11. I've always found the assertion that explosives brought down the WTC interesting, but not conclusive by any means. I am open to the possibility, but something that nags at me is this: if Bush's brother Marvin really did have some role in it, isn't that just a bit too obvious? Is it likely something so obvious would be the extent of such a conspiracy? Wouldn't conspirators cover their tracks a little better than this? Likewise, why hasn't more footage of the Pentagon attack been released? Am I the only one who almost feels as if someone wants people to suspect a conspiracy? Again, if someone was going to conduct such an elaborate and delicate plot that would be witnessed on the world stage, wouldn't they be a bit less obvious and ham-handed about it? It just doesn't make sense to me for them to try to cover something up by being totally obvious about it and knowingly appearing suspicious. Surely they have professionals in their employ who are more than capable of telling them how their decisions (or lack thereof) are being perceived by the public. If they have such vast resources, why not simply manufacture false footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon? They could certainly succeed in such an attempt. That they have not done so, yet have released such limited and arguably suspect footage, makes the notion that they are trying to cover up what happened seem illogical to me. If they wanted to lie, I feel that they would lie more effectively than this. That begs the question: could the lie itself be what we think we're so smart and "in the know" by suspecting and alleging? Could the deception lie in what we ourselves think? After all, if they did do what many think they've done and are trying to hide it, they aren't doing a very good job being secretive are they? This kind of ambiguity and paradoxical behavior on their part ultimately serves to create the same kind of polarity I'm talking about. Both sides remain deadlocked, endlessly debating the evidence or lack thereof, and neither side ever budges.

Then there are champions of the conspiracy movement like Alex Jones. To many, he is a lone voice crying out in the wilderness in an effort to prevent the impending descent of American civilization into a true dictatorship. He allegedly predicted 9-11 just months before it happened. He refers to the alleged conspirators as scum, murderers, criminals, and so on. He's a colorful speaker, and seems passionate. For the true believers, he is a champion, but for those who remain unconvinced, he seems like an obsessive fanatic, or a business man trying to make money off of the conspiracy counterculture that has emerged since 9-11. Which is he? More importantly, can anyone definitively prove he is either? I don't wish to cast derision on anyone, and I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until given reason not to. I would be foolish to blindly trust anyone without reservation as well, though. He too is a lightning rod for the kind of polar debates I'm referring to. Could that be part of his function? Can we really say for sure?

I believe we should all try to maintain open minds, and not surrender our inquisitiveness to what could be someone's agenda. We truly have no way of knowing, and anything is possible. I do believe we are being deceived by people, but I also believe it would be in those people's best interests to keep us divided, and keep us guessing. I suspect such vast conspiracies would transcend political ideologies, and that the only reason to automatically assume more complicities among one political leaning than another is our own desire to be on the right "side." I feel we should resist that tendency.


log in