My problem with the conspiracy people are three fold:
1) A lot of times their so called "facts" are a total load and that ends up hurting us to the outsiders. So often their "facts" are total lies or overexaggerations and thus their predictions fall flat and make us all look stupid (There's a long list from Jones). Furthermore they never deal with any kind of substance politically it's all just about how afraid we should be today- there's never EVER a solution offered it's just more and more fear spread further and further.
I've been listening to A.J. for many years, on and off. Mostly for entertainment purposes/to pass time when I'm playing videogames and I get sick of neo-cons, and I don't want to listen to the regular sound from the game.
While I think he is sincere in many respects, and a talented broadcaster, I get tired very quickly of the endless, complicated evil schemes he believes the government is undertaking around the world. I believe he gives the government way more credit (not to mention assumes they are way more efficient) than they actually deserve or are. I don't necessarily have a big problem with most of these things, but many of his medical/pharma conspiracy theories are truly repulsive. Some examples:
- Vaccines cause autism? He's still pushing this garbage even after many, many reputable medical and public health journals have shown this to be a farce? Does he realize this has consequences or does he simply not care if previously eradicated third world diseases become more common in children? If you don't want to vaccinate your kid, that is your right. But if you are going to use some ridiculously schizo-like paranoid theory to encourage others not to do so, that's where I speak out.
- The way he hocks multi-vitamins as cures for inveterate diseases (he actually had some guy on there claim that he cured a man with Madcow disease using the "Alex Pack" - a combo of Omega 3, multivitamins, and glucosamine/chondroitin. (The human "form" of so-called madcow disease is called Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease - which is universally fatal and not diagnosed until autopsy). This was so disgusting to me I actually almost tried calling in to the show to argue with the quack he had on there. Imagine if a little vitamin C and fish oil could cure an illness the best neurologists and infectious disease physicians and researchers in the world have known and been working to treat for almost 100 years!) Simply amazing to me. Of course, he could have been misdiagnosed by an actual MD as opposed to the Veterinary pathologist (not joking) who pushes these products, something tells me the story is a complete fraud but then again I am cynical. There are probably many other examples outside of health. I'm particularly entertained by his oft-used script:
"X WAS CREATED/TRAINED BY THE CIA. IT'S MAINSTREAM NEWS."
"THE GOVT IS POISONING THE WATER. IT'S MAINSTREAM NEWS." etc.
2) Any one who disagrees with them is automatically a bot sent from the gov't to discredit the "truth." It's pretty bogus to just yell and scream cointelpro every time someone says anything you disagree with. It's also incredibly intolerant and thus disgraceful to the ideas of freedom and liberty.
Prognostication for responses in this thread.... But it is incredibly embarrassing. One of the my latest favorites in the YouTube world is where a group of former AJ fans label him COINTELPRO and go back and forth with their "documentary evidence" interchanged with him calling other people COINTELPRO.
3) The conspiracy people think this is "their" movement that they in fact started it and are the cause for every positive thing that came from 2008 and 2012... I often wonder how many of our delegates and people who actually DO SOMETHING are a part of this so called truth movement. These conspiracy people seem to think they are the driving force of the movement when 1) politically that doesn't seem to be the case and 2) this movement, at least in my opinion, has, was, and is being driven by the Austrian school of economics, not Alex Jones and his brand of fear mongering and repeatedly wrong predictions.
We are all standing on the shoulders of people like Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, and Ron, and to think otherwise is incredibly foolish imo... I think more and more people started to listen to Ron after 2008 because he had been so right about EVERYTHING and part of him being right so often has everything to do with the Austrian school. Not the "truth" movement...
This is the best part of your post, and I couldn't agree more. As someone who reads all of the people you mentioned above, especially Rothbard, I really wish people in this movement would spend more time "getting back to their roots." Rothbard was a genius, and an intellectual giant among other giants of his day. He was disliked by neo-cons and the leftist hacks, and in fact, he showed in
Betrayal of the American Right that they are basically one in the same.
Rothbard himself was a conspiracy theorist in a way. He looked beyond the mainstream reports, and traced connections between the politicians and the megabanks (and other corporate interests) who backed them and benefited from their policies. He makes pretty astute but obvious connections in his writings. Read
Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy for example (
here for free in ebook form). He casts doubt on the integrity of every US president from McKinley to LBJ, including the beloved Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR. These guys were not the noble leaders people are taught today - they were opportunists who were elected by the wealthy elite and their presidencies only brought them more wealth.
Here's the thing, though: Rothbard's "conspiracy theories" were not really all that complex. They were simply obvious to anyone who believes humans will always seek to pursue their own rational self-interest. He didn't have to come up with creative pseudo-religions for the power elite, symbological conspiracy, or highly complex background stories to everything. The book I just mentioned covers ~80 years of American foreign policy, mentions the Council on Foreign Relations, mentions the Trilateral Comission, mentions Cecil Rhodes and his imperialism, and yet is well under 200 pages. It's all about connecting the shared interests of the different players. There is really nothing astonishing, new, or even interesting about human beings being corrupt and selfish.
People are entitled to their opinions but I think the biggest problem with the conspiracy people is just how intolerant they are of other people and other people's opinions. Not only does it make us all look like hypocrites but it kills any chance at real growth.
Before anyone gets upset with me, please try to see where I'm coming from:
I defend the so-called "conspiracy theorists" of the L.M. for a few reasons:
1. To me, any strong distrust of government is to be encouraged.
2. I consider all of the so-labelled "conspiracy theorists" to be my bros/sisters in liberty. They may annoy me sometimes, but they keep me honest, and I know the people labelled by the "establishment" liberty movement people, like the ones who run candidates in the Republican party, are kept honest by the "conspiracy theorists" because this group will never cave into the establishment garbage just to fit in. And that I admire.
I should be able to criticize people like Alex Jones, even in a way that may seem harsh, while still recognizing that he is fundamentally on the same side. This whole issue is an "in-family" argument, at least that's how I see it. If you are deeply offended by criticisms of your beliefs in 9/11 or water fluoridation or whatever, then you probably place a greater importance in propagating those theories at the expense of promoting the message of liberty - which is fundamentally what Ron Paul himself says, only in a nicer way.
Whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not, the people in this movement want to see the scum who run the country sent packing and want to see the Constitution and Bill of Rights in particular, respected once again and/or they at least want the right to self-determination respected again. In other words, if they don't want to restore the country to its founding principals, they want to see it break up into smaller governments that are more controllable that will or they want to see a breakup of all government in particular. Without really expounding on the merits (or lack thereof) any of those options, it all comes down to the fact that we are staunch individualists and want a situation that is reflective of that.
