Page Content (OCR)
definitely been used in a very detrimental way in our world. However, when such ideas - backed by the kind of extensive data we assembled - are brought to public attention, they are generally dismissed as “conspiracy theory” and are thus deemed unworthy of attention. So please, bear with me a moment here and let’s apply a little logic to the problem. The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word “conspiracy” evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a “conspiracy thinker"; it just isn’t “acceptable"; it’s “un-scientific” or it’s evidence of mental instability. Right? That’s what In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the words “conspiracy theory” silently. Have you ever asked yourself why the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such strong “recoil”? After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in “high places” thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves. Certainly, everyone “knows” that this happens all the time. No one would even raise an eyebrow if you said: “Well, everybody knows that politicians are corrupt and just playing politics to get rich”. But if you really stop to consider the ultimate implications of such a statement, you would have to admit that this could be a real problem about which you might wish to do something. But then, of course, what could you do? We see here what Cohen has called “implicatory denial” where there is no attempt to deny either the facts or their conventional interpretation; what is ultimately denied are the psychological, political and moral implications that follow from deep acknowledgement. We can casually admit things in states of implicatory denial, which then leads us directly into “interpretative denial” where the raw facts that something may actually be happening - such as a conspiracy - are not really denied - they are just “interpreted” or rationalized away. We are then more easily able to slip into literal denial, that there is no “conspiracy”, and then the painful truth of our true condition is ameliorated and we can return to our sitcoms, ballgames and weekend barbeques. Historian Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes 165 High Strangeness — Part Two you are thinking, isn’t it?