This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
The Great
Conspiracy That Doesn't Exist by
Michael Z. Williamson Today, a disturbing trend
became apparent to me. If anyone
else has encountered this, I’d like to hear from you. I was in a superficial and
small-talk based conversation, that delved for a mere moment into politics.
That moment was enough to drag us deeper, into computers and traces, and
then to phones. I joked that I often like
to intersperse my phone conversations with phrases such as “assassination
plot,” “Bush” and “next Tuesday.” The lady said that she
would never do such a thing, as she knew about the capabilities of the
government to spy on us. I replied
that it was possible they were listening, and if so, they’d already know I
joke about this. It’s also
possible that they’d like us to think they have that capability.
Besides, as a reservist, they undoubtedly have a file on me anyway
(I’ve been interviewed at length, with credentials on the table.
This is normal, expected, and not a cause of worry for me.) She then replied that she
had “friends” who had “much higher clearances” than I do.
This is an odd statement, first because she has no idea what my clearance
is, second because it sounds like both an attempt to legitimize herself using
her possibly imaginary friends as a step, second like a psychological need to
one-up me. I should have left then,
I suppose. Apparently, her
“friends” would be at risk if she made jokes like that. Really. I then commented on a
disapproval of much of what this president is doing, as I disapprove of much of
what most presidents do, but that I respect a man who at least doesn’t consult
the polls before making a decision. (HINT:
this was a slam at Clinton.) Her reply was that I
wasn’t from Earth, Clinton was a great leader, etc.
Very well, we all have our opinions.
We disagreed on a point, and she then played her trump card to avoid
having to make sense. “Look,
Mike, I don’t want to sit here and discuss conspiracy theories with you.” Now,
at no time have I ever mentioned a “conspiracy theory” around this woman.
That would be impossible, as I don’t believe in them.
Greed, corruption, stupidity, cupidity, common agendas, quest for power
and thirst for false respect; these I believe in.
But that a group of people could orchestrate a national or global coup
and not have a documentable leak somewhere?
No. What
her statement is, is a wish that anyone who disagrees with her is somehow
deluded and incompetent. I’m sure
we’ve all seen this with anti-gun nuts. To
accept that one’s opponent has a valid point or a basis for common discussion
legitimizes him. This is a threat
when one’s own basis and argument are illegitimate.
The instant defense is to ridicule one’s opponent, attempt to make him
seem foolish and unworthy. If this
is accomplished, the threat of rational debate is avoided.
This is necessary, because rational debate will expose the flaws in
one’s logic and postulates. As
a professional psychiatrist observed here some time back, this is identical to
the need of a delusional person to avoid contact with reality, lest the delusion
be shattered. It is identical,
because in fact, the speaker is deluded. Now,
I frequently see invalid arguments from conservatives on various issues.
These stem from “because,” (not responsive), to “the Bible says
so!” (inadmissible as evidence in laboratory or court, as it is a circular
logic, no matter how great a book the Bible is).
It is only liberals, however (and not all of them, so please don’t
accuse me of saying that), who I’ve heard rant in paranoid fashion.
Their own fears and inadequacies are transferred to the opponent, to
avoid dealing with them. I’m
aware there are a small number of firearms activists who believe in various
conspiracies to deny them their rights. I
respectfully choose to disagree. The
difference between them and the liberal nuts described above, however, is that
the conspiracy theorists are that: theorists. There
are postulates and supporting evidence for their claims. I find it unconvincing, but the evidence does exist.
The liberal nuts have nothing to base their arguments on.
Their “defense” consists of a bigoted three-fold attack. First is
that anyone who disagrees with them one iota by definition is “against”
them. The second prong is that the
evidence for a conspiracy does not exist--not that it is unconvincing, but that
it does not even exist. This is
insulting and fraudulent. The third
and final assault is that anyone against them is by definition a nut and a
believer in the very debates regarding conspiracies they remain deliberately
unaware of. I can’t even begin to
discuss the insanity of this position. What
is even more boggling is that these paranoids are taken seriously by many among
the press, and among the populace at large.
They should by rights be ridden out of town on a rail, after a
double-dipping of tar and feathers. This
is not an isolated incident. In
various debates, in various venues, the epithet “there are no black
helicopters” has been thrown in my (and others) face.
I have never mentioned black helicopters in debate, and as a reserve
member of the armed forces, I would have better technical knowledge of such
matters than the (without exception) civilian accusers I face. Since they have no qualifications to make a refutation of a
statement I never made and would be better qualified to judge than they are, it
is obvious that these statements are intended to incite – and damage my
credibility. The
danger here is that this is becoming a common attack. Anyone who fails to eat the same liberal crap as the
respondent is insulted and accused of being unstable, out of the mainstream, and
by inference a threat to society. The
fact that most of “us” can quote the Constitution and are stated supporters
of the nation (many of us are veterans and police, after all) is made
irrelevant. What is important for
the sound bites to work is that we are seen as enemies of the people. Yes, we are painted as a conspiracy. And
that, Readers, is exactly the technique used by Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Pol
Pot, and others. The agenda of the
speaker is irrelevant; all that matters is that the opponent be made a fool.
The result is divisiveness and civil unrest, leading to mistrust and
eventually to the ostracizing of the attacked party on a widespread basis. Naturally,
the above paragraph will be used by my opponents to claim I belong to a “group
of nuts” worried about an “imaginary conspiracy.” After all, I mentioned historical oppressors (who they
momentarily forget were sociopathic mass murderers), I’m writing negative
comments about them, and like all “conspiracy nuts,” I own guns. Oh,
are you under the impression this was about guns? This debate, Dear Reader, was over the proposed drilling for
oil in Alaskan wilderness. Nor did
I disagree with the concerns voiced over it.
My
crime? My comment on which me being
a conspiracy theorist depends? “Many
of the same people now rabidly opposing it thought it was a great idea a few
years ago. I wonder if they just
don’t like Bush.” Yes,
Ma’am, I must be a conspiracy nut. But
I’m not the one with imaginary security-clearance holding friends who thinks
my phone conversations are of interest to the government because I’m taking a
class in ecological issues. |
||||||||