Wednesday, April 01, 2015
The Year in Paranoia
Jim Bunting, a former reporter for one of Cincinnati's thriving local papers, The Knottinhaur Times
, has now given up all pretense of journalism and embarked upon a new career writing clickbait
. Although that sort of thing usually annoys me, I recently found one post that I just had to share.
Countdown of the Year’s Top 10 Paranoid News Stories
Got your tinfoil suit ready? Here’s a list of last year’s best conspiracy/paranormal/bizarre reports from all over the country.
10. First the National Security Agency said that they didn’t collect information from, on or about law-abiding American citizens. Then they claimed that they only collected metadata of law-abiding American citizens. Now, they claim that they’re not selling the personal information of loyal citizens to third-party vendors for extra funding and the occasional kickback.
In an unrelated item, the most popular car among NSA senior officials: the Maserati GranTurismo MC.
9. CIA spokesperson Will Getzsche denied that the recent changes in the Smith-Mundt Act will lead to disinformation and harassment campaigns against dissidents, conspiracy buffs and liberals. In order to clear up any misunderstandings, the Agency has taken to social media to explain the necessity of updating the law passed by Congress in 1948. You can find their Twitter feed at:
8. On 1 January 2015, FBI spokesperson Collette Rousseau called a press conference to announce that she always wears a blouse and skirt while on the job, and denied that her attire had anything to do with celebrating J. Edgar Hoover’s 120th birthday. She declined comment on why her male colleagues were also wearing skirts and blouses (along with two-inch pumps and matching accessories).
7. The Association of All-American Psychics (AAAP) issued a statement declaring that the Anti-Christ is alive and living in Florida.
Former Governor Jeb Bush was unavailable for comment.
6. According to host Sarah Koenig, Season 2 of Serial will focus on the JFK assassination. The podcast will feature top-level physicists, engineers and other experts to explain the scientific reality of magic bullets. Executive producer Ira Glass hopes to prove that President Kennedy was actually slain outside of a west-Dallas Best Buy by Adnan Syed, who acted alone.
5. In recent news of the dead, former Clubbo country-and-western artist Sandee Saunders teamed up with Robert Palmer and John Lennon to record a new CD titled Rockin’ after Rigor Mortis. In a publicity blitz the week before its release, Palmer once again confirmed that he was Linus van Pelt of Peanuts fame. He also expressed dismay about the comic strip’s decision to secretly replace him with a double. Lennon and Saunders agreed to put “clues” in Rockin’ after Rigor Mortis to alert astute listeners about the “Faux-Linus” (or Flinus, for short).
4. NASA dispelled rumors of a massive UFO invasion, last July. The Agency offered irrefutable proof that the flying saucers reported by thousands of eyewitnesses were actually flying cups.
3. North Korean intelligence officials concluded, after a year of combing through the material they hacked from Sony Pictures, that none of the company’s films and television shows were worth watching. Moderators at Rotten Tomatoes responded, saying “We’ve known that for years.”
2. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Nge Kotcher stated that the nation’s Fusion Centers will monitor all conspiracy lists of eleven or more.
1. Breaking news! Marilyn Monroe is alive and living in Chris Christie!
Labels: April 1
Monday, March 23, 2015
The Protocol of the Protocols
I used to drive an old friend of mine –and by old, I mean someone who was actually a beatnik – to the Veteran’s Administration in South Orange, NJ. He (let’s call him K.) required constant medical care for injuries he suffered during the Korean War. Once, we were on needles and pins when these ancient war wounds, suffered over fifty years earlier, came close to doing him in.*
If you asked him to talk about his most defining experience in the military, it wouldn’t be the mortar blast that continues to plague him to this second. Rather, it was an incident in basic training. He woke up in the middle of the night, and saw the soldier in the next bunk staring intensely at him.
“What’s wrong?” asked K.
“You’re Jewish, ain’t ya?” asked the stranger.
“Yeah, so what?”
“We learned that Jews have horns, tails and cloven hooves,” he explained. “That they come out when you’re asleep.”
“Oh,” K. responded in his best deadpan. “We don’t show them to the goyim
Before he had joined the Army, K. had come across whispered gossip concerning blood libel
, But a guy staying up all night because he really thought my friend would turn into Beelzebub? That struck me as utterly daft. I mean, we’re talking about 1951, for crying out loud. You’d think that people wouldn’t be so ignorant by the mid-Twentieth Century.
As it turns out, much of that same ignorance persists well into the Twenty-First Century. After the events of 11 September 2001, and the subsequent attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the anti-American sentiment espoused by some Middle East Muslims became almost inextricably linked to anti-Israeli rage. This led to the belief that Jews were manipulating the US to commit atrocity after atrocity against innocent Muslims.
This anger found expression in the re-emergence of a nineteenth-century literary tract. It’s original author had written it as a joke, a sharp commentary on political power and corruption, Later authors would plagiarize the initial satire and present it to the public as fact. Although discredited and thoroughly debunked over the years, it has once again become a universally revered text for those who hate Jews.
According to many sources, among them the Holocaust Museum
“The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion made its first appearance as such sometime between 1897 and 1903. Its author, Pyotr Rachovsky, served as the chief of foreign intelligence in the Okhrana
, one of the most brutal spy agencies that ever existed. The book purported to be the actual minutes of a meeting of an 1897 international Jewish congress that met in Russia. Supposedly, these elders met to discuss their plans for taking over the world.
Rachovsky stole the bulk of his material from other sources, among them Hermann Goedsche’s 1868 novel Biarritz
. Admittedly fiction, this book contained a chapter titled “At the Jewish Cemetery at Prague,” in which twelve elders, each representing a Hebrew tribe, meet in a graveyard to discuss plans for global dominion. Goedsche in turn ripped off several other sources. The first was the 1848 Alexandre Dumas Sr. novel Joseph Balsamo
. The second was an 1797 letter circulated by a French Jesuit, Abbe Barruel, who blamed the French Revolution on a Masonic conspiracy, and nebulously connected the subsequent political tolerance of Jews by Napoleon III to the plot.**
The third source is one that also heavily influenced Rachovsky, and is considered by virtual consensus to be the most direct ancestor of the Protocols. Satirist Maurice Joly wrote The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu
in 1864 to poke fun at the stupidity of realpolitik. One can easily notice parallels between the Joly novel and Rachovsky’s work. In fact, some passages are almost verbatim. For example, the following, appears in the Joly work:
Like the god Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country.
This corresponds to the following passage from “Protocols”:
These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion.
The Joly book didn’t mention Jews at all. It instead consisted of a dialogue between the title characters. The machinations discussed wasn't attributed to Jews, but to power in general. In that light, one can see Joly as insightful with respect to how the ruling class sees the rest of us. And in some ways the story’s reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci’s
analyses of power. The problem here is that in his retelling of Joly’s novel, Goedsche replaced the abstract notion of scheming aristocracy with a specific Jewish plot. Yet, Goedsche didn’t claim that the work reported an actuality. That was done by Rachovsky, who depicted these tales as real sometime around the turn-of-the Twentieth Century.
From there, a number of Russian papers began to report on or serialize the tract, in each instance characterizing it as fact; as if this 1897 Jewish congress on world domination actually happened.
As you probably have surmised by now, the malleable nature of the villains’ identities became one of the more horrific attributes of “Protocols.” This was a point not lost on Dr. Umberto Eco (Humanities, University of Bologna
), who in his 1988 novel Foucault’s Pendulum
noted that someone had arbitrarily introduced Jews as the masterminds behind Joly’s tongue-in-cheek plot, most likely to divert attention from real conspirators.***
The malleability doesn’t end there, either. While the main focus in the “Protocols” has been the international Jewish conspiracy since 1903, copious textual changes have cropped up over the years, each demonizing various political outliers as useful idiots, or harbingers of the plot’s success. Indeed, most versions of the “Protocols” one can find on the web bear little resemblance to the direct 1920 English translation done by Victor Marsden
.**** For example, one passage that one finds in online editions:
The people who make up society (voters) are lame-brained numskulls who never achieve anything. They spend their time following astrology charts and football. They obviously can’t think logically.
“The Protocols” as originally written and translated by Marsden don’t actually contain the character string “lame-brained numskulls.” There aren’t any references to astrology or football, either. Obviously, this is a means by which writers have “updated” the cultural context of the original. But in doing so, they clearly changed it. Likewise, some items that can loosely translate as the same thing, can become even further distorted by the addition of editorial comments that don’t appear in the original. For example, the above cite quotes the “Protocols” as saying:
3. People are basically evil by nature. The bad people in this world far outnumber the good. So the best form of government is not one that holds reasoned discussions with its people, but one that uses tyranny.
The original says:
It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization, and not by academic discussion.
Note that the original doesn’t have bulleted or numbered points, as do the later editions. Second, the addition of the line “People are basically evil by nature” is an extrapolation that again doesn’t appear in the original. Also, you’ll find the term ‘academic discussion’ replaced by ‘reasoned discussions,” which is especially meaningful when you realize that many who hold these beliefs today are at the core anti-intellectual. In the US and Europe, they tend to also be quite right-wing, and use the “Protocols” to rally a bigoted political base to support neo-conservative agendas.
And it gets worse. A passage in the original, “This task [of crushing benign, caring monarchies and other autocracies] is infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism,” often appears as “using liberalism,” or in some cases “using socialism,” or “using leftism” as a means of weakening a population. Here, the implication is stark. Such writers deliberately omit the extent to which the original equates liberalism (a despised concept among contemporary “Protocols” fans) to freedom (a principle they highly cherished). In doing so, propagators of this tract can create boogeymen out of people they see as ideological enemies.
That’s not to imply that the original is any less insidious. At the same time, it does show just how reactionary, adaptive and manipulated this text is.
The degree to which “Protocols” has influenced contemporary conspiracy culture is small, but (admittedly) significant. A minuscule sampling of researchers will actually refer to such thing as ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), or the “Jewish banking conspiracy. More will refer to anti-Semitic in more coded, generic ways such as “The Israel Lobby,” “The Rothchilds,” or “The Illuminati/Masonic conspiracy.” And some will broadly deny that the vast majority of Jews have anything to do with the “International Jewish Plot,” but they believe in that plot all the same.
The reason why I brought this topic up is several-fold. For starters, it’s an invalid argument that can gum up any legitimate queries by dumbing down the underlying mechanics of power to a highly isolated group of meanies. Second, it’s useful in rationalizing the bigotry that many have held against Jews for (literally) millennia.
Third, it ironically negates a core belief within anti-conspiracism.
*Relax. He’s fine at the moment. That reminds me, I have to get back to him on our fantasy baseball league..
**In a 1993 paper titled “Commentary on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” Dr. Daniel Keren points out that the bulk of French royalty and nobility were themselves Freemasons at the time of the Revolution.
***And no, Eco isn’t serious about there being actual conspirators. He just wanted to show how identities in such tracts can change back and forth to whomever one hates.
**** As I said in the previous post, I really don’t want to link to these sites, many of which are supported by Klan, fundamentalist Christian and Nazi groups and leaders. But in order to verify the comparison, you can find the one alluded to in the above passage here http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Protocols.in.Modern.English.htm#protocol1.
Labels: conspiracism, political theory
Friday, February 13, 2015
The Ugly Side of Conspiracism, Pt. II
I had a hard time getting the words out of my mouth. The sentiment I had to convey was crude and filthy, not to mention incredibly stupid.
“They didn’t hire you, Q., because you’re Jewish.”
I expected her to share my indignation. I expected her to blow her lid, spew venom, possibly at me for exposing her to that sort of naked bigotry. Instead, I got a sharp pain in my ear as this ferocious cackle erupted from Q.’s lungs. This wasn’t a nervous, ironic or weak laugh, mind you, but a real honest-to-goodness guffaw.
“I wondered why they were being so nice to me,” she said, still tee-heeing. “They didn’t know. I certainly wasn’t going to tell them.”
Her response almost surprised me as much as that of the VP from Arschloch AG. Nevertheless, I felt the need to apologize to her, and profusely.
As soon as she could catch her breath, she interrupted my extended mea culpa to say, “Listen, X. Right now, as we speak, I’m painting this bedroom in my summer cottage. When I finish with that, I’m going sailing. And right now those are the only important things on my mind. I’ve got fifteen-million in the bank. I don’t need the job. I just thought it would be fun to do, if they let me do it....You don’t have to worry about anything, and thanks for the call.”
Mainstream discourse on conspiracism, or in popular parlance “conspiracy theory,” often focuses on the anti-Semitic element associated with it. While I can confidently say that such ideas and writers are hardly at the core of conspiracy research, and can readily point out that anti-Jewish hate has existed for millennia, I would nevertheless have to acknowledge that there exists within conspiracy culture a strain that is profoundly bigoted. Moreover, I can find numerous examples of this.*
And it’s here where we have to consider that not all conspiracy suspicions are equal. We don’t have to accept that if shadowy forces murdered President Kennedy, Senator Kennedy and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, then Jews are in some diabolical plot to seize control of the world.
We don’t have to think long and hard to understand that the notion of a grand Jewish conspiracy isn’t just immoral, but idiotic as well. A conspiracy of that apparent magnitude would implode under its own weight. I’d reckon that if every Jew in this world were part of some diabolical plot, a whole lot of them would have blown the whistle by now. Kids, for instance, always get into their parents’ business, and usually have some success doing so. When they grow into rebellious adolescents, which they invariably do, why don’t they all, or at least a significant number of them, reveal who-knows-how-many family secrets? You’d figure that the Refuseniks, Israeli conscientious objectors who took a principled stand against their nation’s government, would have the temerity to spill the beans on some grand Jewish plot, had it existed, for they certainly demonstrated their (1) bravery, and (2) passion for social justice. In short, there’s just too many sources for a leak in a system that wide.**
More important, the example of my acquaintance, Q., offers a much clearer picture of how power actually operates, and who really wields it. Far from being in a position to control the institutions of power, Jews have been consciously, unabashedly rooted out of positions that would allow them the amount of influence alleged in these conspiracy stories. And this runs counter to what many people have always heard about Jews and industrial power. While one can name prominent Jews–especially those executives engaged with the media industry–one can point out many instances where their once proprietary companies were bought out by multinational conglomerates. One can also note the instances where Jewish executives were brought in to helm firms through treacherous waters, only to be let go when the crises ended.***
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are some who persist to fixate on cabalistic mysticism, myopically focus on the Rothschilds as the power behind everything, or blame all contemporary woes on Zionist manipulation. As the Anti-Defamation League notes, blaming Jews for the evils committed by power is hardly new. In an essay titled “Jewish ‘Control’ of the Federal Reserve: A Classic Anti-Semitic Myth
,” they write:
For centuries, anti-Semitic propaganda has demonized the Jew as a conspiratorial, manipulative outsider, often with powers and designs of world domination. From the Middle Ages through the Holocaust, fabricated accusations against Jews as poisoners and corrupters have led to horrendous suffering for the Jewish people.
In more recent years, the anti-Semitic notion that ‘the Jews’ dominate and command the U.S. Federal Reserve System and in effect control the world’s money has surfaced across the extremist spectrum. Contemporary economic anxieties and distrust of government have given new life to this timeworn myth.
While anti-Semitism has flourished for literally millennia, a specific strain of it is relatively newer, its origins lying in the circulation of nineteenth-century hate propaganda that has found a new and devoted following in cyberspace.
*There are some, for example, who believe that Jacqueline Kennedy assassinated her husband, John. Why do they say this? Because she was a Jew, according to them. Never mind the fact that she was Roman Catholic; her mother’s Jewish ancestors made her Jewish, and thus somehow destined to murder the President of the United States, according to these people.
I could also point you to many who believe in the “Rothchild International Banking Conspiracy.” But I don’t feel like giving any of these sites a link. You’ll just have to Google them for yourselves
**True, you can find some people who claim to be Jewish, and who claim to be privy to such plots on Youtube
The above link will take you to a RationalSkepticism post about a woman (somewhat resembling Et in Arcadia Ego Eve
), who says she’s a scion of the famous Rotschild (or Rothchild) family, and who endeavors to whistleblow on the great family conspiracy. Yet, one has to have severe doubts that this woman is actually Jewish, let alone the descendant of such a prominent family, thus rendering her revelations highly dubious to say the least.
Often, you will find in such diatribes, that a specific family (Rothchilds) becomes the focus of anti-Semitism. Thus one can see rants against the Rothchilds in particular, and against Jews in general, as virtually the same. In other words, for the hater, the Rothchilds come to represent the entirety of the Judaic diaspora.
***In his 1990 book Hit Men
, Frederic Dannen related one such instance: Former Columbia Records CEO Dick Asher
was asked to take charge of PolyGram, a failing record label then owned by the Dutch-based Philips NV. Dannen pointed out that once Asher steered PolyGram back to solvency, the parent company quietly let him go.
Labels: conspiracism, cyberculture, personal stuff, political theory
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The X-Spot: Year Nine
You know, I
started this blog by accident. Then I said I'd only do it for five
years. And as the rest of the modern world has turned to Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, and other more civilized forms of social media, I
realize I should have quit when I said I would. The blogosphere
takes on more and more characteristics of the ghost town.
That's all well
and good, seeing that everything changes. And after dealing with a
couple of subjects that press hot-buttons in all the people who care
about them, I was content to spend the past year doing nothing but
vamping on a topic that's fun to talk about, but of no real
significance--at least not yet.
Then, in late-summer, anything I wrote here took a backseat to the
drama unfolding with my health. Once again, thank you all for the
e-mails, the snail mail, the telephone calls and just the well
wishes. They meant more than I can express.
For the record,
I'm doing great, and should live to be a little old X, some day.
As I said to our
friend Ray in the previous post, I'm still blogging, just very
slowly. I guess I'm too stubborn to stop. And while I eventually
reopened another Twitter account, this URL seems more like my home on
Home, home on
Where the trolls
and the sock puppets play.
Where always is
So you watch
everything that you say.
As you can
probably tell from the previous post, I'm embarking on yet another
series, one I've been meaning to write for some time. I don't know
how contentious it will be, although to me it's a very serious topic.
Read for yourself
whatever you wish to of this next series, or if you're new to this
page, series past. And I wish you all a very happy new fiscal year.
Labels: cyberculture, personal stuff
Friday, January 30, 2015
The Ugly Side of Conspiracism
The LaRouchite office I mentioned working for in the series about Jeremiah Duggan
had as its cover an executive head-hunting firm. Ostensibly, we were in business to help corporate titans fill senior positions. In reality, the job was really about gaining information on our clients, and passing it up the LaRouche hierarchy.
To underscore that point: one lady was fired after successfully placing three executives in a month. Everyone in the office heard the behind-the-door screeching of the company president as she bellowed, “What do you think you’re doing? Whatever it is, that’s not your job!”
Everyone else understood the job. But, if in the course of doing business we just happened to place someone, we could still get the bonus for it, so long as we didn’t make a habit of it.
And as it so happened, something landed into my lap. A well known multinational company based in Germany put out the call for an almost impossible-to-find executive, one who was a proven master of credit, operational and political risk. The candidate also had to have held a senior management position with a rather obscure but very important US government agency
. And, as I had learned from the successful woman now on the breadline, any candidate for a position this high had to be able to mix it up and fit in socially.
I had just the person, whom I’ll refer to here as “Q.” I got permission from my company president to place my perfect pick with this company. If Q. landed the job, it would mean $30K in my pocket.
I arranged the interview between the search committee and the candidate. Q. would go to the New York corporate office, and meet with company brass who flew all the way from Deutschland to in talk to her in person.
At about 2:00pm, I got an e-mail from one of the company’s executive VPs, thanking me for finding perhaps the only person on this planet who could fill this immense job. He gave a brief description of the meeting. Q. arrived, they had lunch, she obviously knew her stuff. Moreover, she spoke perfect German. In this executive VP’s words, “We’ve fallen in love with her.”
I called Q. to see how she felt about the meeting. She said she had fun chatting with them all, and would really be interested in the position.
I could just taste that thirty grand.
A couple hours later, my reverie crashed and burned. I got an angry e-mail from the executive VP, who only hours before had thanked me for sending Q. to them. I called, only to have him chew me out plenty. “Don’t you ever screen these people?” he thundered. He told me how lucky I was that their own investigation, presumably carried out by their own private detectives/security staff, turned up the problem before any damage was done. He threatened to cut off all ties to me and the pseudo-headhunting firm if I ever sent him such a candidate again. Because of the importance of this particular corporation, my boss would have pitched me out the window had that ever happened. At the very least, she’d fantasize about it.
Puzzled, I could only stammer, “To what are you referring?” This VP had been so busy on the warpath that I had no idea what the smurf he was talking about, or what I could have possibly done to piss him off that much. After a couple choruses each of “You don’t know?” and “You mean, you really don’t know?” he finally told me why his company’s feelings for this woman went from blissful love to searing hate over the course of two hours.
Yup. He told me. I understood what he said. Yet, I couldn’t for the life of me understand why he said it. He made me so bloody angry I couldn’t see straight. I might have punched his lights out were he physically in front of me. At the very least, I fantasized about it.
I had no choice but to call Q. to tell her that she was no longer a candidate for the position. “That’s strange,” she said. “Did they give you any indication why?”
“Q.,” I said, “You’re not going to believe this.”
Labels: conspiracism, cyberculture, personal stuff, political theory
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Sleeping in Heavenly Pieces
'Twas the night
before Christmas, and all through the house, everyone stirred.
Consequently, I didn't sleep a wink.
So I'm up this Eve
posting comics to the site. Happy Merry, or as the Fab Four would
say, “Crisp and crisp and crispy.”
Labels: personal stuff
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Mr. Ockham and Mr. Oswald
‘Occam's Razor’ which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.
–Superconductor, Reddit post on the topic of conspiracy (2014)
If you go on the web and do a joint search for the terms “conspiracy theory” and “occam’s razor,” you’ll find quite a few statements similar to the above (which I selected on the basis of its pithiness). Indeed, a number of self-described ‘skeptic’ sites and hard-copy publications depict the Razor as the garlic that wards off conspiracy vampires. And, usually, they do so with a healthy dose of snark. I have, for instance, a slick, glossy 2013 Media Source rag titled Conspiracies: Mysteries, Secrets & Lies
, which leads off with the following observation:*
The theory of Ockham’s Razor suggests that the simplest most straightforward explanation to any issue is usually the best....Ockham’s Razor is the bane of conspiracy theorists everywhere. Why keep it simple when a wacky, convoluted theory can be developed about almost anything.**
Put aside, for a moment, whether any of that is true. The fact remains that anyone truly and exclusively believing in this interpretation of Occam’s Razor will lose his or her shirt within approximately one half hour after arriving in Manhattan.
Because within five minutes, he or she is bound to encounter either a three card Monte
or shell game
. Both cons depend on sleight of hand. They’re both designed so that the simplest, most straightforward answer is always wrong.
And here, we encounter the first problem with this version of Occam’s Razor. It doesn’t take into account human guile. Sure, scientists use it quite often to gain insight into natural phenomena. But using the Razor to study rocks is quite different than using it to find anything meaningful within social interactions and individual motivation. After all, the rock isn’t trying to deceive the scientist, or take her money. It has neither will nor need. It’s just a rock. People, on the other hand, cheat, lie, steal, obfuscate, and deceive to augment or protect their social standing, privileges, power or wealth. Doing these things successfully depends on the ability to complicate reality, knowing full well that fellow human beings will, if given the choice, usually opt for the simplest, most straightforward answer.
Here’s the second problem with this interpretation of the Razor: it’s not what William of Occam actually said. What he said, was this:
 Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitas [You must never assume plurality without necessity, and]
 Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora [It’s folly to do with more when you are able to do with less].
In these two quotes, William of Occam’s telling us not to complicate the explanation any more than we have to. In the three card Monte/shell game example, we go for the simplest, most straightforward explanation and lose everything. So, we must, per the Razor, complicate the explanation of the pea or special card’s location in order to account for the greed and dishonesty of the dealer. The complications arise because of a compelling reason (necessitas
On a more basic level, the application of Occam’s Razor discounts or downplays superfluous information or data that require additional proofs. For example, let’s say that I drive down a country road, see a white cow in a nearby field, and say to myself, “There are white cows here.”
Ten minutes later, you drive by, see the same white cow in the same green field, and say to yourself, “There’s a white cow over there.”
According to Occam’s Actual Razor, who’s statement is most likely correct? In this instance, your explanation wins out over mine. Why? Because I said “cows
,” plural. In order to validate my response, I would need to find another white cow in the vicinity. In your statement, the white cow in the field is proof of itself. No further evidence is necessary.
Of course, you could go hog wild overboard with this and say, “There’s a white cow over there....at least she’s white on one side....during this time of day....when in this field.” But you get the drift, right?
More importantly, you can probably see how this applies to the JFK assassination.
* A writer going by the name J. Lee Marks is credited with penning all the articles in this issue.
**’Occam’ and ‘Ockham’ are both commonly found spellings for William.
Scroll down or click here to read the second part of this post.
Click to know more
April Fool's Day
The Children of God Cult
Theresa Duncan & Jeremy Blake
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation
Fox, Monsanto and Mystery Milk
The Gemstone File
The Golden Ganesh (History)
The Golden Ganesh (The Radio Drama)
The Gulf Breeze UFOs
The Grail Mystery
Hitlerism vs. Nazism
The International Church of Christ
Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie
Lyndon LaRouche and Jeremiah Duggan
Ode to Miss Texas
The Paul-Is-Dead Rumor
The Paul-Is-Dead Rumor, Revisited
Perverse Science: Biological Determinism
Ruminations on the JFK Assassination
The Summer of 1947
The Tate-LaBianca-Hinman-Parent-Hinman-Shea Murders
The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)
The VENONA Ciphers and the Rosenbergs
The Golden Ganesh (history)
New World Order
Shameless Plug Division