This article concerns the Boston Bombing and slightly dated (April 2013) but still a good read.
Mason I. Bilderberg
Alex, your latest theory is terrible — we expect more from you
Alex Jones must be either getting lazy or think his readers are really dumb, because his grand theory about the Boston Marathon bombings is the sloppiest concocted narrative we’ve seen since that dog ate your homework.
Of course, Jones and his comrades at InfoWars thinks the brothers suspected in the bombing are innocent, citing such reliable sources as Twitter user “Trippin No L’ 4/20.”
The basic outline is the same as all of his projects: A globalist cabal working through the U.S. government staged a “false flag” operation that will be blamed on terrorists as pretext to take away guns and civil liberties and eventually tyranny. Eventually, they willdepopulate the entire planet through massive genocides.
In the video, Jones calls the bombings “the biggest event” of his 18 years of broadcasting, so you would think he would bring his A game, but he really let us down with this one. There’s something you have to respect about a good conspiracy theory — Hollywoodcertainly does — and Jones is generally a master, but his latest work is so full of holes, internal inconsistencies and outrageous leaps in logic that only die-hard fans willing to suspend all disbelief will appreciate it. It’s really the Phantom Menace of the InfoWars franchise.
Here are just a few of the things a good continuity supervisor would catch:
- Jones says Navy SEALs were on the scene and involved in carrying out the attack. He knows this because there were “guys in uniforms” wearing “Navy SEAL caps” all over the finish line. This is his primary piece of evidence, appearing in numerous blog posts and videos across his site. But if you’re executing a secret conspiracy, don’t you think you’d leave the uniform and baseball cap identifying yourself as a member of said conspiracy at home? Why not just wear a name tag that says, “Hello, my name is conspirator #4, Gorge Soros sent me?” The devil is in the fabricated details, Alex, you know that.
- The mask slips, Jones says, when the “whole script got screwed up” after CNN reported, and then retracted, that a suspect had been arrested (thanks, John King!). The reason for the change, Jones says, is that the conspirators didn’t anticipate that people would have access to public images of the bombing. Really? The omnipotent globalist regime didn’t think, gee, “I wonder if there will be any cameras at this very high-profile event. You know, the one where thousands of people come with iPhones and dozens of media outlets set up hundreds of camera along the route?” How are we supposed to take the globalist threat seriously when they can’t even get this right.
- In the space of few hundred words, InfoWars can’t decide if the media is merely useful idiots or direct co-conspirators. First, the site says the bomb threat at the courthouse after the attack was a pretext to “distract the media,” but states that the “government … ordered the corporate media to ignore the Plan A.” But if you can simply order the media to do anything you want, why create a distraction? Why bother with any of this, really? Just order the media to make the whole thing up, catch the fall guy right away, then kick up your feet with a hot cup of global enslavement and wash it down with some mind-controlling fluoridated water. It’s these kind of internal consistencies that really take the reader out the story.
Beyond this, let’s just step back for a moment and take a look at the overall concept. For a compelling narrative, you need a capable and scary villain, but these guys sound like thewet bandits of megalomaniacal cabals. They have the most powerful people in the world — including the media — in their camp, and they can’t even come up with a compelling coverup, let alone remember to take their baseball caps off?
- Info-Spats: Even Conspiracy Theorists Are Sick of Alex Jones (illuminutti.com)
- Alex Jones is a kosher-certified fraud (destroyzionism.com)
- Alex Jones: ‘I Will Defeat Rush Limbaugh in the Free Market of Ideas. People Like This Show More Than His’ | NewsBusters (illuminutti.com)
- Alex Jones Explains How Government “Weather Weapon” Could Have Been Behind Oklahoma Tornado (illuminutti.com)
- The End of Conspiracy Theories (illuminutti.com)
- Alex Jones Responds To Maddow’s Take Down: ‘I’m Attracted To Mr. Maddow, And That Really Conflicts My…’ (mediaite.com)
We’ve written before about the historical and social aspects of conspiracy theories, but wanted to learn more about the psychology of people who believe, for instance, that the Boston Marathon bombing was a government “false flag” operation. Psychological forces like motivated reasoning have long been associated with conspiracy thinking, but scientists are learning more every year. For instance, a British study published last year found that people who believe one conspiracy theory are prone to believe many, even ones that are completely contradictory.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, published a paper late last month in the journal Psychological Science that has received widespread praise for looking at the thinking behind conspiracy theories about science and climate change. We asked him to explain the psychology of conspiracy theories. This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
There are number of factors, but probably one of the most important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it’s much easier to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it’s not just randomness.
What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
Basically what’s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it’s psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you’re probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature of reasoning.
Another common trait is the need to constantly expand the conspiracy as new evidence comes to light. For instance, with the so-called Climategate scandal, there were something like nine different investigations, all of which have exonerated the scientists involved. But the response from the people who held this notion was to say that all of those investigations were a whitewash. So it started with the scientists being corrupt and now not only is it them, but it’s also all the major scientific organizations of the world that investigated them and the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., etc., etc. And that’s typical — instead of accepting the evidence, you actually turn it around and say that it’s actually evidence to support the conspiracy because it just means it’s even broader than it was originally thought to be.
Are there certain types of people who are more prone to believing in conspiracy theories than others? Does it match any kind of political lines?
I don’t think there is a systematic association between political views and the propensity to believe in conspiracy theories. There are some studies that suggest people on the political left are inclined to it, and there are some that suggest people on the right are. But it’s always a weak association.
- Conspiracy theories only create more conspiracy theories (illuminutti.com)
- The End of Conspiracy Theories (illuminutti.com)
- Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories (illuminutti.com)
- Not all Conspiracy Theorists are Conspiracy Theorists (illuminutti.com)
- Where Conspiracy Theories Come From (dish.andrewsullivan.com)
- Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories (richarddawkins.net)
But they all agree: Something stinks to high heaven!
Every time there’s a shooting at an elementary school or a bombing at a marathon, people harboring an obsession with — or financial interest in — conspiracy theories will jump on inconsistencies to tear down the “official narrative” and replace it with their own, no matter how far-fetched. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before the conspiracists set their eternally skeptical eyes on another target. Meet the Edward Snowden truthers.
What’s surprising about the Snowden theories is that one might think he’d be a sympathetic figure to people deeply skeptical of government power. But instead of holding him up as hero (or even a traitor), some are intent on labeling him a co-conspirator.
Perhaps the most prominent Snowden truther is Naomi Wolf, whom Al Gore reportedly paid $15,000 a month to advise his presidential campaign. People were a little surprised Friday when the prominent feminist author and activist posted a lengthy essay on her Facebook page wondering if Snowden may actually be a plant from “the Police State.”
Wolf wrote that she has a “creeping concern” that Snowden “is not who he purports to be,” mostly because Wolf expects leakers to be disheveled, inarticulate and litigious (apparently based on her experience with Jullian Assange), and Snowden is none of these things. “To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points,” she wrote. And his girlfriend “happens to pole-dance?” — very suspicious! “It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled,” she wrote. Ergo: Snowden is likely a government stooge.
The missive was rightly mocked online, and predicated on a number of factual misunderstandings. Still, Wolf is hardly alone. On the fever swamps of the Internet’s conspiracy sites, plenty of posts dissect Snowden’s biography and find gaps that can only be filled by CIA dirty tricks, apparently.
Webster Tarpley, a Lyndon LaRouche ally who hosts an antiwar radio show that often dips into 9/11 trutherism, proposed this theory Friday: “The most likely hypothesis for Snowden is that he’s a triple agent.” Here’s how that would work: On the first level, Snowden works for the NSA (via Booz Allen), and on the second level, he’s a whistle-blower. As for the third level: “Then at bottom, where is his bread really buttered? CIA. At the bottom, he’s a CIA agent all along,” Tarpley said on his radio program. The CIA’s purpose with Snowden is both to weaken Obama and push the president to intervene in Syria, which, conveniently, the White House announced it would do Friday. See?
Here is a more likely scenario. Snowden never saw any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened. Instead, he was either used or volunteered as a CIA operative to carry the endless turf war between CIA and NSA a new step forward. […]
This was a covert op launched by the CIA against a chief rival, the NSA. NSA, the agency that’s far bigger than the CIA. NSA, the agency that’s been taking over intelligence gathering, that considers itself superior to everybody else in the intelligence field. The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy.
This is the more plausible scenario to Rappoport because he just doesn’t believe Snowden’s biography, as he wrote in more detail at Activist Post. For instance, how did he sign up for special forces training if he never completed high school? “These are red flags. They raise questions. Serious ones,” he wrote.
A widely shared blog post from Scott Creighton, meanwhile, calls Snowden a “manufactured hero” and expands the conspiracy to include . . .
- Here come the Edward Snowden truthers (salon.com)
- New Conspiracy Theorists: Snowden Truthers (newser.com)
- Jon Rappoport ~ NSA Leaker: Are There Serious Cracks In Ed Snowden’s Story? (shiftfrequency.com)
- Is Naomi Wolf working for the NSA? (counterpunch.org)