160

Can the Progressive / “Conspiracy” Divide be Bridged?

John Kirby

People from a variety of advocacy communities who tackle issues ranging from the assassinations of the 1960’s to vaccine safety are rightly upset by a recent NBC News.com op-ed authored by Lynn Parramore, a progressive journalist known for her insightful pieces for Alternet and other outlets.

In the article, Parramore argues that those who espouse “conspiracy theories” might be displaying “narcissistic personality traits,” suffer from “low self-esteem,” and share a “negative view of humanity.” Various studies are cited in support of this claim.

As a filmmaker acquainted both with the author of the op-ed as well as a number of people from the communities under fire, I hope it’s possible to dispel some of the misconceptions on all sides and even find some common ground.

At the outset, it should be acknowledged that Parramore’s piece is an uncharacteristically harsh ad hominem smear, taking its place in a long line of similar attacks on people who have dared question—sometimes at great personal cost—a whole range of suspect official narratives over many years.

But Parramore and many journalists like her are neither assets of an intelligence service nor unthinking tools of big media; she is fully conscious of the ways in which power and wealth can be used collusively (one might even say conspiratorially) to deceive and abuse the public.

So what accounts for a piece like this one?  Why does it rankle a progressive like Parramore so intensely when she hears someone mention that the U.S. military-industrial complex had the most to gain from the September 11th attacks, or that Big Pharma may be applying the same racketeering techniques to the ever-expanding vaccination schedule she discovered at play in the opioid crisis?

Those of us who have labored long to publicize state crimes against democracy have our own list of the psychological, political, and economic factors that may be preventing smart people from seeing evidence that we regard as overwhelming.

The primary difficulty may lie in just how smart and thoroughly educated many of these writers are: no one who has spent a lifetime looking into the way the world works wants to think they might have missed something big.

And as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the more educated we are, the more we are a target for state-corporate propaganda. Even journalists outside the mainstream may internalize establishment values and prejudices.

Which brings us to Parramore’s embrace of the term “conspiracy theory.”   Once a neutral and little-used phrase, “conspiracy theory” was infamously weaponized in 1967 by a memo from the CIA to its station chiefs worldwide.

Troubled by growing mass disbelief in the “lone nut” theory of President Kennedy’s assassination, and concerned that “[c]onspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization,” the agency directed its officers to “discuss the publicity problem with friendly and elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” and to “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

As Kevin Ryan writes, and various analyses have shown:

In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.”

While it turns out that Parramore knows something about this hugely successful propaganda drive, she chose in her NBC piece to deploy the phrase as the government has come to define it, i.e., as “something that requires no consideration because it is obviously not true.”  This embeds a fallacy in her argument which only spreads as she goes on.

Likewise, the authors of the studies she cites, who attempt to connect belief in >em>“conspiracy theories” to “narcissistic personality traits,” are not immune to efforts to manipulate the wider culture. Studies are only as good as the assumptions from which they proceed; in this case, the assumption was provided by an interested Federal agency.

And what of their suggested diagnosis?

The DSM-5’s criteria for narcissism include “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity…a need for admiration and lack of empathy.”  My experience in talking to writers and advocates who—to mention a few of the subjects Parramore cites—seek justice in the cases of the political murders of the Sixties, have profound concerns about vaccine safety, or reject the official conspiracy theory of 9/11, does not align with that characterization.

On the contrary, most of the people I know who hold these varied (and not always shared) views are deeply empathic, courageously humble, and resigned to a life on the margins of official discourse, even as they doggedly seek to publicize what they have learned.

A number of them have arrived at their views through painful, direct experience, like the loss of a friend or the illness of a child, but far from having a “negative view of humanity,” as Parramore writes, most hold a deep and abiding faith in the power of regular people to see injustice and peacefully oppose it.

In that regard, they share a great deal in common with writers like Parramore: ultimately, we all want what’s best for our children, and none of us want a world ruled by unaccountable political-economic interests.

If we want to achieve that world, then we should work together to promote speech that is free from personal attacks on all sides. Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and discussions labeled “false and misleading” on major social media platforms.

Who will decide what is false and what is true? 

In the case of vaccines, there is actually no scientific consensus that they are safe—only a state-media consensus, emanating from groups like the CDC, which act as sales agents for Big Pharma. 

A terrible precedent is being set, and both unfettered scientific inquiry and free speech are suffering greatly. Today it is vaccines and “conspiracy theories” that are being banned and labeled “dangerous” by the FBI. What will we be prevented, scared, or shamed away from discussing tomorrow?

President Kennedy said:

a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

Perhaps we should take a closer look at ideas that so frighten the powers-that-be. Far from inviting our ridicule, the people who insist that we look in these forbidden places may one day deserve our thanks.

John Kirby is a documentary filmmaker. His latest project, Four Died Trying, examines what John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were doing in the last years of their lives which may have led to their deaths.
avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TFS
Reader
TFS

Of course when the Conpiracy Theorist debunkers turn up, one question would be to ask:

1) So are you suggesting, the Government has NEVER been party to a SINGLE CONSPIRACY…….NOT ONE?

Guy
Reader
Guy

To be honest I have not been following the NBC, much less Paramour but I get the gist of her article and so typical of those so called reporters to drivel for the corporate line .
The real conspiracies are the ones authored by our own so-called governments,be it in the UK or the US these days.

Thom Prentice
Reader
Thom Prentice

Paramour is the poster child herself for narcissistic personality disorder and for twisting and manipulating reality to fit a deranged psyche’s world view. There just has been something “not right” about her writing and thinking for s long time. I sure would not call her progressive. Fake progressive perhaps.

Mucho
Reader
Mucho

Easily one of the best, well researched online resources for 9/11 is http://www.bollyn.com

Christopher Bollyn’s work is crucial as it is mainly focused on the who was behind the attacks, rather than endless ivestigations into the physics of the event. Physics is an important part of the 9/11 puzzle, but the players involved are of far more importance.

Here is one of his presentations, condensing some of his work into a seminar:

Christopher Bollyn DC 9/11/2017 “The War on Terror among Truth Seekers”

William HBonney
Reader

It was the Israelis… Who knew?

Guy
Reader
Guy

Christopher Bollyn deserves an award for the work he has done through the years at the expense of his and his family’s safety for naming the ones that are responsible for this 9/11 terrorist event.

William HBonney
Reader

@TFS

Is Dr Ceril Wecht not an expert in his field?

Yes, but there were eight other ‘experts in their field’, why would you give credence to the one supporting your conspiracy theory, if it were not for confirmation bias.

He was also a dissenting voice in the investigation into the death of Elvis Presley.

Are you getting it now?

TFS
Reader
TFS

What eight other experts, in what fields?

So, tell me the No.1 question he has, and why is hasn’t been answered.

William HBonney
Reader

In 1978, he testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations as the lone dissenter on a nine-member forensic pathology panel re-examining the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which had concurred with the Warren Commission conclusions and single bullet theory

TFS
Reader
TFS

I think this settles your questions

William HBonney
Reader

The irony…. YouTube is censored where I live. I bet they’d subscribe to whatever nonsense you posted as well….

TFS
Reader
TFS

Really? so Dr Cyril Wechts explanations are rubbish?

I’m sure he would feel overwhelmed by the imense amount of reasoned intellect to any argument you would have with him, but i’m guessing he’d be asleep.

TFS
Reader
TFS

Good try but doesn’t answer the question he has on the SBT.

All you have to do is prove what they are saying. It been 50yrs.

TFS
Reader
TFS

In related news a dissenting voice making a presentation to esteemed dcotors (many who walked out of the presentation in disgust) outlined that bacteria where actually in fact in the gut and that he could cure Stomach Ulcers.

Having being the dessenting voice against the qualified and overwelming opinion of his peers that he was talking out of his arse, he proceeded to give himself a stomach ulcer in full view of his students and then proceed to administer drugs to cure himself.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery.

Do you Feel Me?

TFS
Reader
TFS

TFS
Reader
TFS

In related news a dissenting voice making a presentation to esteemed dcotors (many who walked out of the presentation in disgust) outlined that bacteria where actually in fact in the gut and that he could cure Stomach Ulcers.

Having being the dessenting voice against the qualified and overwelming opinion of his peers that he was talking out of his arse, he proceeded to give himself a stomach ulcer in full view of his students and then proceed to administer drugs to cure himself.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery.

Do you Feel Me?

George
Reader
George

I am responding to an earlier comment you made because, for some reason, I cannot reply to it in the proper place.

“The old adage ‘two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead’ applies here.”

Wrong: secrets can be uncovered even if both of them are dead.

“The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked.”

Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what has been claimed etc.

“A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed.”

Always a bad sign when you start to repeat “would have”. Lots of presumption here.

“No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long dead, taking the reasons to their graves…..”

New facts can emerge all the time even regarding the most ancient of events.

“….or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported.”

So you now have godlike omniscience?

“A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy……”

There’s no point in going much further here. You now devolve into psychobabble which, as always, is based on the dogmatic assertion that you are right. (cf. the formerly mentioned godlike omniscience)

William HBonney
Reader

I am responding to an earlier comment you made because, for some reason, I cannot reply to it in the proper place.

You cannot reply, because those examplars of free speech, Off Guardian closed the discussion down. Now there’s a conspiracy theory worth discussing….

I’m not going to respond to deeply, beyond saying that the American legal system, encouraging ‘expert opinion’, for hire feeds the conspiracy theory industry, To whit: Laughing boy, TFS, quoting an expert for hire on the JFK case, and completely forgetting to mention that eight equally qualified experts held the opposite opinion.

I am not a historian, thank christ, but what little I do know about the (in)discipline is that you only respect primary sources. For the JFK case, as all others, that means people at least contemporary to the event, and preferably, the protagonists. It
excludes those years later, wanking off on YouTube, for money.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

You have unprecedented freedom here to spam your repetitive, wildly unoriginal and frequently abusive opinions.

We don’t expect any grace from you in return, but please refrain from accusing us of censoring you!

William HBonney
Reader

Can you explain why George can’t reply to my original comment? I don’t spam anyone, BTW.

Abusive opinions, when you have commentators openly trying to rehabilitate war criminals?

I will try and be more respectful, to you my host, despite the fact that you have referred to me as a psychopath. Thanks for that.

George
Reader
George

You obviously have no respect for history. No surprise there then. And plenty of people “contemporary to the event” were suspicious about the quickly arrived-at conclusion that JFK was assassinated by a “lone nut”. Indeed you have unwittingly revealed yourself when you say that “preferably, the protagonists” should supply the sources. The protagonists, i.e. the main actors, of the JFK assassination should be the ones to trust?

And if you want to wank off to YouTube, that’s your business.

William HBonney
Reader

I am responding to an earlier comment you made because, for some reason, I cannot reply to it in the proper place

You cannot reply because those champions of free speech, Off Guardian, closed down the previous discussion. Now there’s a conspiracy theory worthy of your (I want to say ‘talent’, but ‘diagnosis’ seems more apt)

New facts can emerge all the time even regarding the most ancient of events

I’m not a historian, Thank christ, but what little I do know about the (in)discipline is that you prioritise, and give maximum credence to primary sources. Given that both the man accused of killing Kennedy, and the guy who shot him are both long dead, all you have now is people (if you’ll excuse the crudity), wanking off on youtube.

To what end you associate yourself with that laughable scholarship, the American propensity for ‘expert opinion for hire’ is up to you. Your dry cleaning bills are your own affair.

Ragnar
Reader
Ragnar

I don’t think the progressive-conspiracy divide can be bridged. This probably is true for a variety of reasons. Putting it simply, it’s because the progressives are after power, and the conspiracy theorists are basically just looking for ‘truth’. Both camps want to reveal the corruption of the establishment. The progressives, only some of it, in order to get “the people” to join the causes that the self-elected leadership has defined for them. They work top-down and want to lead and be in control. They are collectivists. They want to gather in their flock of progressive sheep. They are on a mission. The progressives hope one day to be in power and if they succeed in this, they don’t want to be governing a populace that is sceptical to the new progressive establishment. The conspiracy theorists, however, are a really mixed bag of people. They are individualists, they don’t want to be ruled. They don’t want to go along with any power. They want to reveal all of the corruption, not just some of it. They simply want “the truth”. All of it. Goals as irreconcilable as this, can certainly not be bridged, plus, the people of each side of it simply are too different for that ever to happen.

George
Reader
George

Actually progressives want to achieve something other than a lot of “brave individualists” feeling smug about how much truth they have managed to gather. And achieving something means actually banding together into that much dreaded “collective” that bothers you so much. But we have all been indoctrinated into sneering at “collectives” so that we remain impotent.

Ragnar
Reader
Ragnar

George, you’re wrong about my feeling “smug”, but right about the necessity of working together to achieve a common goal. What does bother me however is the authoritarianism. It certainly would be better to find a happy medium here. -Now, what’s this about “brave individualits”? I don’t see them that way. Some of the conspiracy theorists are not very well trained in analytical thinking and are inclined to believe a lot of nonsense. They keep saying they want “the truth”, but I rather think many of them would be unhappy with it if they found it. They might prefer their own beliefs rather than facing the facts. So there you are! It really is a bit complicated, I would say.

George
Reader
George

Fair enough. I was just reacting to that familiar trope of Western propaganda which emphasises the lone individual as colourful iconoclast while demonizing all group activity as a “soulless collective”. This necessarily leads, on the one hand, to the cult of the glamorous individual who makes an impressive entrance but who, being isolated, cannot achieve anything other than to rack up sales figures and, on the other hand, to a sense of hopeless impotence in the masses who are reduced to spectators coughing up the cash to see the aforementioned glamourous individual.

I see this as very much part of that bourgeois capitalist notion of the bold entrepreneur against the bovine masses. It’s a notion that once again performs two tasks at once: it encourages the lone competitive dog-eat-dog mentality while also discouraging groups from forming against the bosses.

I will certainly grant that what passes for the “Left” these days has been assimilated into the overall system of control. Divide-and-rule is, as always, the basic tactic. An unnatural split has been effected between Marxist economic theory and conspiracy theory so that the latter is then projected onto “the Right”. And so you can have an economic/systemic analysis OR you can indulge in conspiracy theory but you’re not allowed to do both. Quite a brilliant manoeuvre. Just as those who see the current anti-Semitism as a deliberately whipped up confidence trick are tagged with being “neo-Nazi” i.e. again on “the Right”. After all, it is “the Left” who are supposed to constantly make accusations of anti-Semitism.

Ragnar
Reader
Ragnar

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” These words are attributed to Joseph Goebbels. -So, George, it would hardly make a difference whether the State is Marxist or Capitalist. It’s either power or truth. They are inherently different and can not be reconciled. Ultimately, there is no bridge possible. However, so-called “common” goals are of a lower order and cooperation here is possible, temporarily. These relationships are unstable and prone to breaking up precisely because they’re ultimately not common at all. The principle are different and the personalities too. Ships Passing In The Night, like. -See?

George
Reader
George

We all have common goals. Basically the goals of life and health. And these are hardly goals “of a lower order”. If that was true then we must be living in a state of “postmodernist relativity” where anyone can decide arbitrarily what matters. And that would certainly lead to your ships-passing-in-the-night scenario i.e. the ultimate divide-and-rule vision.

As for power, the late Marxist writer Ellen Meiksins Wood noted that, in modern times, we have an unprecedented degree of political freedom. But the reason for that is that power no longer lies in politics. It lies in economics. What is the point of having formal rights when your livelihood is gone?

William HBonney
Reader

The old adage ‘two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead’ applies here.

The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked. A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed. No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long dead, taking the reasons to their graves, or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported.

A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy. Such people are unable to deal with the complexities of the world as it is, and therefore seek to make it a world of black and white, good and evil, heroes and villains. The internet, with its blurring of fantasy and fact enables them. This is why discussions like this get so polarised.

TFS
Reader
TFS

1. 9/11 and JFK are false because WILLIAM HBonney has declared it so.

Boom, thanks for watching kids.

2. In other news, some Conspiracy Theorists Imagined 747-E4Bs above Washington at the time of 9/11 and 25+second delay introduced into the Air Traffic Control System but the Official Conspiracy Account of 9/11 didn’t discuss it because there was nothing to see.

3. In related news, HWB wack jobs go on one…

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/new-york-fire-commissioners-call-for-new-9-11-investigation-about-pre-planted-explosives/

4. Corbett, goes off on one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXYswf3lzU8

5. And again, Corbett goes even more mental.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWLis-TVB2w

6. But it’s ok kidz, because HWB wack jobs, like first responders, police, fire personnel architects, physicists, former military personnel, pilots, Nobel Peace Prixe winners, medical experts, etc etc all collectively asertained that the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 is about as usefull as the Warren Commission Report.

7. HOWEVER, HWB THINKS YOU’RE A WACK JOB.

William HBonney
Reader

Unless you are very old, the Kennedy Assassination is out of living memory. One has to ask, where is your conspiracy theory about Thermopylae?

As for 9/11, it was a national humiliation for the US, akin to allowing St. Paul’s to be destroyed by terrorists.

You will always be able to find like minded cretins on the internet, but that doesn’t equate to evidence. Once again, don’t be f****** stupid.

TFS
Reader
TFS

Shush now Troll.

Already in your first sentance you shown you ignorance and a disdain for a dicusssion on subject areas YOU have raised.

Here: Is Dr Ceril Wecht not an expert in his field?

You’ve being asked, and always you fail to respond in any adequate manner.

You wallow in your ignorance, comforted in your own self aggrandizement that you are in actual fact knowledgeable………..ABOUT EVERYTHING. On the subject areas you speak off, its safe to say, by your responses that you have nothing in the tank.

You profess something backed by knowledge yet when challenged you change tack and fail to answer the question, by ducking and diving.

Your responses are that of a child.

You have been Watched, Judged and Found Wanting.

Feel free to continue. This website has now amassed a trove of material on you, should anyone be in any doubt. My job is done……TROLL

TFS
Reader
TFS

In related news, that well known Conspiracist Susan Lindaeur really didn’t nearly get chemically lobotomised by the state for her knowledge in relation to 9/11.

Nope. She nearly got what she served because she is one of HWB, Wack Jobs.

r. rebar
Reader
r. rebar

unless & until someone goes to jail — there are no conspiracies & as silence is — like any commodity — only as good as the price paid to maintain it — those who know have a real vested interest in not talking (it’s not a secret if you tell someone)…

roger morris
Reader
roger morris

Ms Parramore is doing nothing more than her profession and tenure demands. Witting or un-witting.
This co-ordinated and global media attack on the ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ is co-ordinated and Global for good reason. It is the ‘Great Wurlitzer’ at full throat coinciding with extraordinary reductions in internet freedoms of information flow. The determination of international deepstate to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of ‘Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump supporting white supremacist(etc)’- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty.

A read of the Cass Sunstein/Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule Paper describing ‘Conspiracy theory’ as a ‘crippled Epistemology’ and determining ‘COINTELPRO’ type strategies to counter the danger of their truth becoming certainty, will enlighten those in the dark of IIO methodology and expose Ms Parramore as a true MOCKINGBIRD.
The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And CIA operation Mockingbirds’ job (Quote) ‘is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty,” that they are .

mathias alexand
Reader
mathias alexand

Try this for conspiracy thinking

https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/part-2/

George
Reader
George

Good link. I like this bit:

“Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. Even the most outlandish “conspiracy theory” in existence—that people like George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth are shape-shifting, extra-dimensional reptilians—is closer to the truth than what liberals believe. The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the vast majority of humanity…”

I’ve often felt there is a lot of (metaphorical!) truth in David Icke’s ravings, although the reptile image is unfortunate in that actual reptiles are amongst the most sedate and peaceful creatures.

Joe
Reader
Joe

Except maybe for crocodiles….

George
Reader
George

Well yes – I was going to put in a disclaimer there. But most reptiles are sedate to the point of being boring. On a holiday in Greece I woke up to see a little lizard above me and I wasn’t sure if it was real or a decoration. Actually – I’m still not sure. Perhaps it was watching me to report back to its masters?

(By the way, it was me that voted your comment down. That was an accident as I was meaning to hit the “reply” button. Sorry!)

George
Reader
George

I just voted your comment up and the down one disappeared. I didn’t know I could do that!

William HBonney
Reader

This is how ‘vote down’ works. No need to thank me.

George
Reader
George

Nevertheless I thank you, Billy. It’s always a pleasure to get voted down by you.

DunGroanin
Reader
DunGroanin

Hey! Leave that kindda ignorant speciest talk out of this.

I’ve seen crocodile ‘farms’ from Venezuela to Siem Reap that would make you weep with what we have done to these pre-mammalian Earthlings – just for evil shoes and belts!
We don’t even eat them for food.

Ok!

(Not completely tongue in cheek 😈

mark
Reader
mark

When I was in Africa, local people didn’t eat crocodiles. This surprised me because they only earned about £30 a month. They seemed to revere crocodiles, like cows in India.

In Florida, however, people ate fried alligator like fried chicken, though they were obviously much better off.

Molloy
Reader
Molloy

Eichmann and today’s useful idiots; Hannah Arendt

(start Arendt quote)
Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a “monster,” but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the whole enterprise, and was also rather hard to sustain, in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused so many millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly noticed. What could you do with a man who first declared, with great emphasis, that the one thing he had learned in an ill-spent life was that one should never take an oath (“Today no man, no judge could ever persuade me to make a sworn statement. I refuse it; I refuse it for moral reasons. Since my experience tells me that if one is loyal to his oath, one day he has to take the consequences, I have made up my mind once and for all that no judge in the world or other authority will ever be capable of making me swear an oath, to give sworn testimony. I won’t do it voluntarily and no one will be able to force me”), and then, after being told explicitly that if he wished to testify in his own defense he might “do so under oath or without an oath,” declared without further ado that he would prefer to testify under oath? Or who, repeatedly and with a great show of feeling, assured the court, as he had assured the police examiner, that the worst thing he could do would be to try to escape his true responsibilities, to fight for his neck, to plead for mercy—and then, upon instruction of his counsel, submitted a handwritten document that contained a plea for mercy? As far as Eichmann was concerned, these were questions of changing moods, not of inconsistencies, and as long as he was capable of finding, either in his memory or on the spur of the moment, an elating stock phrase to go with them, he was quite content.
(end quote)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1963/02/16/eichmann-in-jerusalem-i

William HBonney
Reader

While you are at it, are there any other ‘Adolfs’ you aspire to rehabilitate?

mark
Reader
mark

The subject of this grisly Zionist show trial farce had been tortured and brainwashed and prepped for months before he was produced to perform for the cameras.

There is significant doubt about who he actually was. He may have been some stooge chosen more or less at random to play the part.

Molloy
Reader
Molloy

The vaguely gaslighting discourse of a salaried agitator unable to understand Arendt and State sponsored criminal conduct !!!
“No point making comments on a public forum if you don’t want a debate.”
Better understand than be hanged.

Molloy
Reader
Molloy

Chomsky dealing with the indoctrinated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU&app=desktop

Why it is important to call out the so-called ‘Global Elite’ facilitators on here.
And why it is essential to understand what Eichmann was facilitating (and the madness that morphed into the same apartheid bigotry in the 21st century).

Better understand than be hanged.

ZigZag Wanderer
Reader
ZigZag Wanderer

Presumably Lynn Parramore will give us her opinion as to why dozens of trustworthy medical professionals inexplicably and en masse turned into compulsive liars at Parkland Memorial Hospital Dallas November ’63.
Or why hundreds of NYFD firefighters displayed the same behaviour in New York September 2001.

This narcissism thing needs to be nipped in the bud before someone gets hurt.

Gary Weglarz
Reader

I appreciate the article, but the sentence below is offered with no logical or rational support – it is simply an evidence free assertion:

(“But Parramore and many journalists like her are neither assets of an intelligence service nor unthinking tools of big media; ) – really?

It is quite clear that if someone “is” (an asset of an intelligence service) that they will certainly not be broadcasting this fact to the world or to friends and family. And for someone to assert that “conspiracies” don’t exist in the real world requires a level of credulity that most intelligent and rational people the least bit familiar with the historical record would find rather difficult to muster up. I dare say it would be much easier in fact to prove the assertion that our Western history is simply the “history of conspiracies” given the oligarchic control of Western populations for millennia. This is hardly “rocket science” as they say. We do have a rather well documented historical record to fall back on to show the endless scheming of Western oligarchy behind the backs of Western populations.

Tim Jenkins
Reader
Tim Jenkins

Well done, John Kirby: serious definitive & analytical journalism, once again @OffG …

different frank
Reader
different frank

There is one conspiracy theory that is complete nonsense.
Four young men blew themselves up on 3 underground trains and one bus on July 7, 2005.

different frank
Reader
different frank

Do people not get what I said?

vexarb
Reader
vexarb

Yes, Frank, you are saying that UK77 has a “special relationship” with U$911. Publicly pre-scripted, public mock exercise ordered by UK and U$ regimes on same day as they committed their terrorist atrocity, and involvement of Muslim “terrorists” Israeli “transport security” company in both atrocities.

vexarb
Reader
vexarb

PS. That video is a gem. However, both regimes are deeply dug in subterranean defenses against Truth Bombs. They don`t call it The Deep State for nothing.

Maggie
Reader
Maggie

OMG Frank, THREE people marked you down for this post. Not one of them having watched this video which proves without a shadow of doubt that the official narrative was LIES!!!! And that there are three crippled sliders here.

Maggie
Reader
Maggie

Frank, your link doesn’t open.. but this one does:
https://archive.org/details/7-7_Ripple_Effect

Guess what: it was disclosed on PANORAMA…

This film is also quite telling:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245887/Four-Lions-Controversial-Chris-Morris-jihadist-comedy-bumbling-suicide-bombers-premieres.html

Frank Speaker
Reader
Frank Speaker

FFS, as if they’d plan it out on a TV programme! What the hell are some of you taking? Your minds are so open that you allow any old shit to pour in unfiltered!

It’s far more logical that this programme was watched and copied by the bad guys. This is what happens when the media (Hollywood) are chasing viewing figures and profits, create sensationalised output, then we all scratch our heads when the nutjobs go and emulate some of this stuff!

No, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s lack of common sense, responsiblity and accountability across our media and society in general, a degenerate society where we accept that “anything goes”.

What we are seeing are the inevitable harvest of the seeds we sow. Claiming this and others are a conspiracy is just downright lazy and escapist get-out clauses.

Frank Speaker
Reader
Frank Speaker

I meant to write:
when the media (and Hollywood)

Mucho
Reader
Mucho

Here is some pretty good research into 7/7 from WideshutUK

7-7 What Did They Know? (77 London Bombings Documentary)

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

I like Michael Moore’s response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time:

“Just the ones that are true”…

John Thatcher
Reader
John Thatcher

A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it.Often people offer as fact conspiracies that only as yet exist as theories,with greater or lesser amounts of evidence to support.I have no doubt that interested parties who are the accused in these theories,will mount efforts to discredit any theory mounted against them or those they represent.One of the ways they will do this is to plant “evidence” purporting to support the theory,but easily disproved by easily available information.Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many “conspiracy theorists” readily accept and share along with genuine evidence,this planted “evidence” to the wider internet,thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy,by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense.

Harry Stotle
Reader
Harry Stotle

Isn’t it high time we had a term to describe those who always accept the official version of events after controversial political incidents no matter how implausible this account might be?

For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down).

‘Conspiracy theorists’ would have thought – why are necons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner.

Anyway, here’s a clip of Henry – the believers in everything the government say would never have considered the objections raised in the film – such questions are tantamount to mental illness according to these ‘progressives’.

Mucho
Reader
Mucho

The permanent POTUS

Mucho
Reader
Mucho

lol

Harry Stotle
Reader
Harry Stotle

Surely Dr Strangelove, sorry I meant Henry Kissinger heading the ‘independent’ commission was a kick in the teeth to mentally unstable conspiracy theorists?

As a matter of interest I wonder who Parramore would have chosen to lead the commission assuming she felt such a tedious process was required to determine why 3 sky-scrappers decided to disobey the laws of physics o nthe same day – for some trusting progressives such matters are little more than a mere trifle that can easily be explained by compromised scientists.

In fact some progressives’ even go so far as to advocate taking what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld say at face value because its not like they have anything to hide, or would tell lies about WMDs, or Saddams purported links to Al-Qaeda – leave that sort of stuff to paranoid conspiracy nuts seems to be their general rule of thumb.

Frank Speaker
Reader
Frank Speaker

Harry, whilst we are doing that, isn’t it also high time that we had a term to describe those who always see a conspiracy in absolutely every major event?

George
Reader
George

Straw man. Harry is talking about those who see conspiracies where there are reasons to see conspiracies.