This article, as you can tell from the title, is about all the "sick" and "offensive" conspiracy theories there are floating around in the world today. There are some examples, such as the ones about how the CIA created AIDS to kill gay people and flooded the inner cities with crack to get rid of black people, and so on and so forth. This article, which is three pages long (those are Reader's Digest pages, mind you, but three full pages nonetheless), goes on to denounce said theories as scapegoats, complete garbage, or a way for people to rationalize their prejudices. Which is all fine and dandy with me, I don't exactly buy into all the conpiracy theories out there whole-heartedly, but at the same time, there are some that I wouldn't say are beyond the capabilities of our government. So, it's not the article itself, it's the fact that the author provides no reasons as to why these theories are so obviously BS. Of course, no one wants to think that our own government orchestrated September 11, or that they're out to eradicate certain groups of people, but what proof do we have saying that they're not doing exactly that? Does it all come down to faith? Blindly believing everything that is told to you? Isn't it the natural state of a curious mind to question everything, including traditional ideas, your god, and, maybe most importantly, your government? Is this man suggesting that we should all become sheep and do whatever we are told, without question? I can easily see how this article could have a second part (maybe in the next issue, maybe later in this one, I haven't made it that far yet) in which the author takes the same attitude toward all the people who think President Bush is an ignorant good ol' boy (or maybe he already has, maybe I was lucky enough to miss it), saying that we're actually the ignorant ones for not thinking he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But I digress. Back to my point, the only thing the author really says to debunk these theories is, "None of these things actually happened, of course." How does he know this? Because the American government just wouldn't do those things? And what makes him so sure of that? Our leaders have lied to us before, on many levels and in many ways and for many, many, many reasons, and still continue to do so today. Today's ridiculous conspiracy theory could be tomorrow's reality.
He also alludes to the idea that the CIA could never have done the evil deeds he referred to because they're simply just too busy. And how does he know exactly how the CIA spends it's time? And just how many people does he think they really employ? Does anybody know the whole answer to either of those questions? Maybe. Maybe not. What I do know for sure is that I'm not going to blindly buy into everything Reader's Digest tells me.
The "crack theory", by the way, as I know it, is that the CIA flooded the country with crack in order to keep the drug war going (which is a whole different can of worms that I'll get into later).
I would like to quote a few specific lines here, just because I found them amusing.
"None of these things actually happened, of course. They were cultivated on the Internet and talk radio, both of which function like dating services for the like-minded mentally ill." What? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
"It's easy to laugh off rumors as ludicrous as these." That depends on how far up your rectal orifice you've got your head shoved.
"This kind of offensive garbage can be posted online by kooks and fanatics anywhere in the world." That would be the beauty of the internet.
"A poll taken this summer showed that one in three young Germans believes the U.S. government may have orchestrated 9/11." I know from talking to friends that live outside of the United States that the version of events that we get here at home tends to be quite a bit different from what people hear everywhere else in the world, which is something common of most countries, not just us. That everpresent "sugarcoating". So it doesn't surprise me that people in Germany might have a better idea of what is really going on than we do.
"Conspiracism is a relic of a prerational age..." Conspiracism (which, for future reference, isn't actually a word) is an active tool of an inquisitive mind.
"Maybe TV has made us all so dumb we'll believe anything." Well, now, I can't really argue with that.