Hello Darkness! The Official Blog of Helen Keller

Folks.

There's been talk on these boards about certain conspiracies, most notably and recently, the conspiracy of the Ontario government to commit genocide by not furthering talks with an idigent band planning on occupying contested land through the winter.

However, the Comment Corner has always been there to explore the underpinnings of conspiracy thinking, conspiracy theories and the overall paranoid style.

At the root of conspiracy thinking is the over anti-simplification of a problem. I digress from the above noted introduction in that I believe the genocide angle is nothing more than rhetoric employed to evoke a comparison to the Holocaust or Rwanda which is a disgusting tactic. That said, I mean anti-simplification to be a state in which no matter how tortured or illogical a proposed scenario is, any challenges, holes or other found errors are corrected with an even more elaborate and complex scenario.

The ultimate goal of conspiracy thinking is nothing short of providing an explanation which defies randomness. Or to put it in a more exact sense, it offers an explanation which primarily seeks to refute the idea that "defences failed". The idea that al-Qaeda can hijack planes and fly them into buildings, avoiding apprehension before the attack, is a scary proposition to be sure. However, to some it is more comforting that the American government disabled these very defences and struck out against its citizenry for nefarious reasons. The defences never failed, this wasn't "random"; this was controlled, deliberate and if the paranoid conspiracy thinker can discover the enemy within, they will be forevermore safe. The same with the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. The same with Pearl Harbour and the paranoid revisionism currently assaulting that historical record. A logical examination of the cold, hard evidence will result in a explanation of the event which can easily include both randomness and a defeat of defences. It's ugly, but it's real.

Another problem with conspiracy thinking is that it usually follows a deconstructionist approach. Events which seem innocuous or nothing special suddenly take on sinister new meaning. James Earl Ray was an avowed racist. There's nothing in his character to suggest anything short of sheer hatred of blacks. In the years leading up to his assassination of MLK, he made numerous statements to people regarding the state of civil rights of blacks. To a rational thinker, it would seem natural that a racist shooting the famed leader of the Civil Rights movement would make racist comments beforehand. To the paranoid mind, already predisposed to believe James Earl Ray didn't do the shooting, his being an avowed racist is "evidence" of being a patsy. It is "too obvious." Therefore, these statements were made by Ray establishing himself as a likely suspect to avoid bringing light on the conspiracy which foiled MLK's defences and killed him, according to Conspiracy Thinkers. The randomness of a single racist shooting MLK is (attempted to be) banished with this theory. However, this overlooks the cold, hard evidence which suggests his guilt to the exclusion of all others. Not a problem to Conspiracy Thinkers though; that evidence was gathered by the government and therefore of course it fits their bogus explanation. See how easy-peasy this Conspiracy Thinking is?

The last problem with Conspiracy Thinking that we're going to touch on here today is the lack of critical examination of the theories and the context they suggest. This usually highlights the lunacy better than any defense of the evidence.

In 1978, Gordon Arnold became a self-identified witness to the assassination of JFK. The basic tenets of his story is that he was in Dallas that day, wanted to take pictures of the motorcade from the Triple Overpass, was challenged by a Secret Service agent to leave the bridge and then decided to watch the motorcade from the grassy knoll. He heard the shots, ducked down because he believed they were close (thus negating an important element of the Warren Commission's explanation of shots from the Texas School Book Depository) and after the shooting, two police officers confronted him; one armed with a shotgun and crying while the other demanded his film. He threw the one officer his camera, the officer removed the film, threw his camera back and Gordon Arnold left the plaza entirely. 10 years later, he had made some additions and revisions. The Secret Service agent on the bridge became a member of the CIA. This CIA agent then followed him down the hill towards the grassy knoll, shooing him away from the bridge. He still claimed to be on the grassy knoll, he still claimed to have ducked when the shots rang out, however, after the shooting, he was confronted by a single police officer carrying a shotgun who kicked him and took his film. To be fair, the kicking description occurred in his original account in 1978 as well.

All in all, this account really adds nothing probative to the JFK assassination. However, it is maintained in conspiracy accounts because it paints a picture of shadowy government goings-on in the plaza at the time. Gordon Arnold was accosted by members of the "conspiracy" who confiscated the necessary evidence to refute the "official" version. Conspiracy Thinkers love this; it adds plausibility to their notion of the sheer power of the conspirators, a necessary element to support their wildly anti-simplified explanations.

There isn't a critical examination of Arnold's story though. If Arnold is on the grassy knoll, apparently with a camera looking to film the motorcade, why does he not notice any other shooters on the knoll? Why do police officer(s) swarm him to confiscate his camera's film, apparently running past Abraham Zapruder to do so? Why did Zapruder testify he set himself up originally on the grassy knoll to film things, but left when he discovered the angles were too obscured to film the motorcade, but Arnold found it to be an ideal spot? Why in the attendent confusion, does Arnold simply depart the plaza, never to identify himself to the police as a witness? Does Arnold believe, immediately after the shooting that his eyewitness testimony would only be swallowed up in a conspiracy so big it encompassed local, state and federal authorities?

When examined in that light, Arnold's story falls apart faster than Cory Lidle's flight plan (had to toss in at least one joke during a serious topic.) However, Arnold's story serves the Conspiracy Thinker's purpose and it survives, despite being illogical and faulty when critically examined. Cue the CTers to come out with added complexity to overcome the criticisms and maintain Arnold's credibility.

And that folks, is the general problem with conspiracy thinking in general. When critically examined they fall apart because they don't seek to explain the crime or event. Instead, since the conspiracy theory serves instead to insist that randomness didn't occur and defences didn't fail, it doesn't need to be a logical explanation, just a satisfying one.

Beware the Conspiracy Theory peddler folks, they don't have your best interests at heart.