manna for conspiracists

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at bellatlantic.net
Tue Jan 8 21:26:02 PST 2002


IOW when a scenario looks plausible to you, it's not conspiracist, but if it doesn't get the mbs impimatur, it's black helicopter material.

mbs: sort of. to restate a bit, something that looks possible is possible, and something that doesn't, probably isn't.

I think we need to redo that Karl Popper thread.

More great logic: If it's on CNN, it can't be a conspiracy. CNN also reported the Unocal story, even mentioning Unocal Veep John Maresca's testimony before the house subcomittee on Asia and the Pacific in 1998. But it left out the juciest parts and ended the story with: "So the idea that oil is now driving this war is totally unrealistic. It would be more sensible to be considering a pipeline on the moon." http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/26/afghan.oil/

The reason why the pipeline theory or the Brisard & Dasquié book is on CNN is spin control, and that's why Richard Butler is on the show. Not because he's an expert but because he's a trusted Bushie. Hakki

mbs: So CNN airs information that blows the lid off the affair, all as a device to keep it secret? A conspirator gives it credence, on air, by failing to react with incredulity? This is pathological.

All conspiracies can be logically demonstrated, even when they contradict each other, if you want it bad enough.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list