Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist/ and sign up. Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!" (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.) Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/klubkonformist Notes on Conspiracy Theories By Jim Keith I recently wrote a scathing review of the latest book by David Icke, The Biggest Secret. What I am mostly critical of in the Icke's work is sloppy thinking; but on reflection it occurred to me that that is what gets my goat about a large portion of the field of UFO/conspiracy writing. The main problem with most conspiracy theorization these days is that many if not most writers as well as readers seem not to have developed anything like an ability to reason, to think well, to discriminate between probable truth and probable falsehood. Certainly there is a sliding scale in this matter, with raving lunacy at one end and Aristotle at the other. I don't claim to be THE role model of rationality to which all should kowtow, by any means. For one thing, I have never read a book on the subject of logic, nor have I taken any academic courses in same. I'm not sure, frankly, that those activities would have improved my thinking, being somewhat of an anti-academic, myself. My belief is that, by and large, the academic system turns out stunted sheep, not the kind of hepcats whose writing I personally dig. There are, without a doubt, certain examples of sloppy thinking that could be pointed out in my own work. Perhaps this shortcoming would have been prevented if I had gone beyond sixth grade in my academic career. I might also not be quite so prone to such criticism if I didn't have to hit deadlines, since I am one of those odd moon-colored creatures who make their living by bashing out books. But I do believe that in some instances I am able to recognize sloppy thinking in my fellow practitioners of, and writers about, UFOs and conspiracy. Icke is one example of the run-of-the-mill in this type of writing today. He is part of a muddle-headed pack that includes many, if not most writers in conspiracy and UFOs, with some of the most well-known suspects being Bill Cooper, George Andrews, Al Bielek, Art Bell, John Lear, Brad Steiger, just about every New Age writer who ever came down the pike, and plenty of others whom I disremember at the moment. For some reason, the UFO field, moreso than the political conspiracy field, seems to specialize in this sort of fugghead. What primarily characterizes a crappy thinker in these fields is that they are stunted in their ability to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies. This can be entertaining, especially to a reviewer with a latent streak of sadism, but it is usually not very enlightening. They can be like Icke, a person who does not even really try to sort out the differentiation between fact and fantasy: to them it is all the same, and if somebody, somewhere said it, then it has to be true. Oh, yeah, Icke gives endless sticky lip service to how careful he is about corroborating his facts, but the bottom line is that his writing and thinking are completely scatterbrained. With a guy like Icke, the ravings of obvious paranoid lunatics and droolers are as much grist for his cogitation as a sober, reasoned examinations, like the kind my friends do. Because they heard it somewhere, that is all it takes for it to be factored in to their mental database. Believing that something is true solely because someone said it and didn't blink is one of the major pitfalls of conspiracy thinking. The fact is, many people are stone lunatics who carry on extended dialogues with their toaster ovens, and are far from being reliable witnesses to fact. People are also prone to tell really reeking fish stories (particularly if there is a book royalty in it), and sometimes to lying to themselves. I have a friend who is like that. He has invented a rather extensive alternative universe in which he is rather wiser, more experienced, is really quite dapper, and has played a much more heroic role in events than he did in real life. He seemingly believes that this altered reality is what actually took place, and will argue so until you remind him of what actually happened. Then he grins sheepishly and talks about his unpleasant childhood and how his dad used to whup him with a belt. He still functions in genteel society in somewhat normal fashion; in fact he is the author of a recent popular book. But if one examines the facts he portrays of his life, it quickly becomes apparent that he has altered them extensively: even, apparently, in his own recollections. Perhaps everyone does this to some extent as a citadel against vicious fate, particularly if they are L. Ron Hubbard. The point is that just because someone says they were abducted by aliens does not necessarily mean that they were, and just because someone said they officiated at a zombie satanic ritual in the White House, that does not mean that it actually took place. Corroboration by other witnesses is not always a perfect fail-safe, either. Sometimes their friends are whacked, in fact they usually are. There is also such a thing as contamination of stories and memories; that is, the alteration of stories due to interpretations that have been obtained from others. For instance, if the UFO abduction tale of a witness who happens to be a big fan of Star Trek oddly has many details identical to those in Star Trek, it would be best to question if some contamination of thinking hasn't taken place. If a person is a Mormon, and the ufonauts lectured him on Jesus hitchhiking the Americas before Columbus arrived, one has to wonder. Conspiracy and UFO stories circulate as urban legends, snowballing into scenarios that are eventually believed by almost the entirety of the field; it is sometimes not factored in that those stories can be influenced by lying, misperception and delusion. It seems to me that the basic abilities required for clear thinking in UFO/conspiracy research are to grade information for plausibility, as well as the requisite wits to skillfully associate information, to be able to relate it to other information. You need to be able to do both to some extent. If you cannot separate out credible reports from obvious humbug and self-aggrandizing claptrap, then your own thinking will be a mishmash and the aliens under your bedstead will eventually end up pulling you through a hole into their subterranean domain, but at least we'll be done with you. I admit that there is a place for a touch of madness in good conspiracy writing. This is the realm of the inspired madman; guys like James Shelby Downard, Richard Shaver, Kerry Thornley; some of my personal favorites. To put out really primo conspiracy work, one has to be willing to go beyond the boundaries of what is normally considered sanity, and to entertain notions that the herd mentality would never consider. For my part, I rule out almost nothing as a possibility in this universe. This sometimes gets me in trouble with the UFO true believers' evil nemesis, the scientific skeptic who will admit to nothing other than the Big Bang and the ultimate efficacy of ballpoint pocket caddies. Sometimes gung-ho UFO types, or mind control buffs, or JFK assassination freaks will accuse me of having a closed mind, since I won't cop to notions that they are certain are true, such as Bill Cooper's contention that the driver of the limo was the guy who shot JFK. That just isn't the case. I reject that scenario not because it is heretical, but because it is not supported by the facts. I am willing to imagine that virtually anything is true, I just try to be careful about what theories I am willing to put in my mind: these days, you just don't know where they've been. Jim Keith's new book, Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness, is available from www.illuminetpress.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FreeShop is the #1 place for free and trial offers and great deals! Try something new and discover more ways to save! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/381 eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/konformist http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
