Washington's Blog: There are No Conspiracies Because Daddy Will Always Protect Us

[reinvestigate911]

an interesting essay re-posted from washington's blog:

Yesterday, I wrote:

It is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind.

Indeed, long-term psychological studies show that approximately one-quarter of the American population has an "authoritarian personality", where they look for a "strong leader" to protect them (that's why even after his lies were exposed, Bush still stayed at approximately a 25% approval rating).

Authoritarians not only don't want to hear that the most powerful people might be acting against their interest, they will aggressively defend against any such information.

But it's not just the quarter of the population that can be said to clinically suffer from authoritarian personality disorder.

All of us - to one degree or another - have invested tremendous hope in the idea that our leaders and institutions will protect us.

As just one example, Americans have traditionally believed that the "invisible hand of the market" means that capitalism will benefit us all without requiring any oversight. However, as the New York Times notes, the real Adam Smith did not believe in a magically benevolent market which operates for the benefit of all without any checks and balances:

Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power ...

Smith worried about the encroachment of government on economic activity, but his concerns were directed at least as much toward parish councils, church wardens, big corporations, guilds and religious institutions as to the national government; these institutions were part and parcel of 18th-century government...

Smith was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.'' Smith passionately argued, ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.'' He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers ''always and everywhere'' to keep wages as low as possible.

Similarly, many Americans have tended to naively believe that our leaders are selfless folks. They forget, of course, that the Founding Fathers loudly warned against relying on the charitable intentions of leaders, expressly set up a government based on the rule of law instead of the rule of men, and warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance in holding the feet of the powerful to the fire.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/02/there-are-no-conspiracies-because-daddy.html">read more...
source: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/02/there-are-no-conspiracies-because-daddy.html

[William Seger]

1. Hmmmm... do the math

If "approximately one-quarter of the American population has an 'authoritarian personality'" then nearly three-quarters of the American population must have other reasons for thinking "9/11 truthers" are paranoid crackpots? I wonder what those reasons might be...

[BeFree]

2. 14 hearts

They must really love you?

You have something to base your belief on? This belief that 75% of the population have nutzoid reasons to believe bushco. Here on DU about 99% doubt bushco when it claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. So why believe anything about 9/11?

What science do you have to offer? The peer-reviewed NIST? Nope, never peer-reviewed. The recently released photos? What?

[BeFree]

3. Heh

Someone took a liking to me. Thanks for the hearts. It is heartening.

[William Seger]

4. LOL, yeah, somebody "loves" me

Apparently, I'm an "evil DUer" for pointing out that "truthers" seem to post a whole lotta crap here. I got all 14 within a few minutes of ripping into a bullshit-laden post, so I assume they're all from the same "admirer." But I'll take that as a compliment, nonetheless, since I didn't get anything resembling a rebuttal.

As for this post, as usual, you don't make much sense. Yes, I have reason to believe that out in the real world, most people consider 9/11 "truthers" (or at least MIHOPers) to be paranoid conspiracy crackpots, if that's what you're asking. I'm thinking specifically of the '07 Zogby poll that found only 4.8% believed "certain U.S. Government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks." (And that was near the peak of the "movement"; there appears to have been some attrition since then.) My point, since you seemed to have missed it (as usual), and even if you want to (pointlessly) quibble over the exact percentage, is that reinvestigate911's "one-quarter of the American population" with an "authoritarian personality" doesn't quite explain the magnitude of the resistance to what the "movement" is trying to sell, does it? I was just wondering if reinvestigate911 could come up with a more plausible explanation. Feel free to jump in with anything relevant, if something should happen to pop into your head.

[BeFree]

5. Heh

Back after 9/11 there were only 10% of the people who did not trust bushco.
10%..! I was one. Now that number has grown to 80%? Why that change? Because the people became educated and they damn sure weren't educated by bushco, were they?

So if you have some screwball poll that claims some number, remember that the people are not well educated about 9/11. Not well educated (yet) and the truth is that anytime a public figure expresses doubts all the assholes in the world come down on them like a ton of bricks. (See thread here tonight as evidence.)

But the educated here on DU are about 75% in doubt. So, are you calling 75% of DUers paranoid crackpots? Where I come from that means that you have a great deal of disrespect for your fellow DUers.

It is because of DU that I, and so many others have been educated about what might have happened on 9/11. And frankly, you have been of zero help. You have obstructed things as much as anybody here, and it leads me to wonder just WTF you are trying to prove.

[William Seger]

6. That's because you have ZERO interest in or respect for the truth

... which is precisely why I have zero respect for the "truth movement" in the first place, and why I can't think of any reason why I should have any interest in your ignorant opinions. You mindlessly parrot bullshit, ignore every attempt at reason, and call yourself "educated?" Suit yourself. Feel free to keep your imaginary count of how many people are buying the "truth movement" bullshit, and keep wondering why it doesn't seem to matter, and why so few people take you seriously. Since you're already convinced yourself that it couldn't possibly be because you are advancing absurdly implausible speculations as "truth" using bullshit for "evidence," then nothing I can say will get through to you.

[BeFree]

7. Why so angry?

Why the incivility? I don't get it. Usually when one is sure, they remain calm.
Emotional outbursts like this usually belie an underlying and deep seated doubt about one's position.

I don't blame you for having doubts. Only a fool would have no doubt about 9/11.

[William Seger]

8. Angry? As predicted "...nothing I can say will get through to you."

If you can't see for yourself what's wrong with the "truth movement" -- if you just don't understand why bullshit and irrationality never does anyone any good -- then you live behind an impenetrable wall of delusion, apparently including deluding yourself about why so many people are on the other side of that wall. Suit yourself, but if you can't stand the heat, then...

[BeFree]

9. Eh?

If you can't see for yourself what's wrong with the "believers movement" -- if you just don't understand why bullshit and irrationality never does anyone any good -- then you live behind an impenetrable wall of delusion, apparently including deluding yourself about why so many people are on the other side of that wall. Suit yourself, but if you can't stand the heat, then...

Seger, there is no reason for you to be getting all upset and pissed off, is there? I guess if you feel all self-righteous and stuff, like the fundies, then you may be able to self excuse your nasty comments, but I can't.

If you can't stand the heat, son, you know what to do, eh?

[William Seger]

10. Ah, another delusion. You've never been able to deliver anything but hot air

... and in case you haven't figured it out yet, dealing with hot air ain't so tough. You, on the other hand, demonstrate over and over that dealing with facts and reasoning is a serious challenge to you, and you think changing the subject and straw-man arguments and lame counterattacks ought to be good enough. As I've said many times, the intent of my "nasty comments" (a.k.a. "calling bullshit") is to hopefully convince certain people who seem to want to turn DU into a swap meet for 9/11 bullshit addicts, and a support group for irrational paranoia, to take it somewhere else -- anywhere else -- because the truth of what happened on 9/11 is not a matter of political opinion. Wherever it might be that you find what you're looking for -- and you have lots of choices -- I promise I will not follow you. But if you prefer hanging around as a volunteer piñata, suit yourself. Just stop whining about getting whacked.

[BeFree]

11. 11 times

11 times in that bitching did you use you and yours. 11 times...!!

So, we should just STFU and go away? Not very democratic is that?

This is a discussion board and some of us want to discuss this matter.
So be it.

[JackRiddler]

12. The hearts are just about the last thing I'd ever complain about.

If that's a way for someone to show they don't like you, you must admit it's harmless to you and constructive for DU. Even if it's meant negatively, I take my set of "Good DUer"'s as an honor - though, given that it's obviously only one person, no more than the first two I got.

[William Seger]

13. Complaining?

I believe I said, "I'll take that as a compliment," considering the context. The only reason I mentioned it was to let BeFree in on the joke, which I find amusing.

[JackRiddler]

14. Not at all.

My own words, reread, sound to me (but stop me if you think I'm misinterpreting myself) like I was agreeing with you. Large numbers of (probably ironic) hearts from one source are no reason for complaint, and a form of compliment regardless of how they are meant.

So at least we have that point of unity.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Well, bully for you.

Using a Valentine's Day promotion to attack people you disagree with doesn't sound constructive for DU to me. YMMV.

[JackRiddler]

16. That's too bad.

Perhaps you're confusing taking exaggerated annoyance with being attacked, or humorlessness with martyrdom, but whatever.

If my "Good DUers" are meant ironically, I invite the giver to contribute another $100 worth. That'll show me.