File 031607

Images

Text

From: jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]
Sent: 12/19/2015 2:28:32 PM
To: Ed
Subject: Re: My review today in wsj of conspiracy theories
Importance: High
could i pay you to organzie my story into a coherent presentation. . probaly a six- 9 moth job.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Ed wrote:
They're Not Really Out to Get You
By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
Dec. 18, 2015, Wall Street Journal
1
Conspiracy, a word derived from the Latin "to breathe together," has been a salient part of the darker side of
recorded history ever since some 60 conspirators in the Roman senate, including Brutus and Cassius, plotted
together to assassinate Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. Nowadays the "C" word does not always sit well with
journalists, who commonly employ it in conjunction with "theory" to describe paranoid distortions of reality.
Even so, a criminal conspiracy is not a rare phenomenon. Not only was a foreign conspiracy responsible for the
monstrous 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center (as well as the previous attempt to blow it up in 1993) but,
according to the Center on Law and Security at Fordham University, over 90% of routine federal indictments
for terrorist attacks since 9/11 contain at least one conspiracy charge. The government's pursuit of conspiracies
is by no means limited to terrorism. Conspiracy charges are the rule rather than the exception in cases brought
against businessmen accused of fixing prices, evading environmental regulations, using insider information or
laundering money.
But there are also pseudo-conspiracies that exist only in a delusionary or misinformed mind. And some of
them achieve a huge following. In Pakistan, according to public opinion polls, a majority of the population
believes that the 9/11 attack was staged by President George W. Bush to launch a war on Islam. The claim that
the 1969 moon landing was faked is still around. Just two days ago a crew from a Russian TV channel rushed
to my apartment to interview me about a viral post on YouTube in which the deceased director Stanley
Kubrick supposedly made a deathbed confession to having filmed the landing in a Hollywood studio—even
though everything about the post, including a fake Kubrick, was untrue.
Why people believe in pseudo-conspiracies is the focus of Rob Brotherton's fascinating book "Suspicious
Minds." Mr. Brotherton, an academic psychologist, advances the thesis that the belief in pseudo-conspiracies
proceeds from the "quirks and foibles" in the way that the human brain, or at least some human brains, process
evidence. He lucidly reviews studies showing common defects in the brain's wiring, such as the bias that
selects evidence to confirm rather than undermine a pre-adopted thesis. "We seek what we expect to find," as
Mr. Brotherton puts it. Relatedly, "biased assimilation" causes us to "interpret ambiguous events in light of
what we already believe."
Discussing Richard Hofstadter's 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," Mr. Brotherton
accepts Hofstadter's characterization of proponents of politically motivated conspiracy theories as "paranoid"
and suffering from "a psychic phenomenon" that prevents them from seeing the absurdity of their position. But
he disagrees with Hofstadter that this condition affects only a small number of people on the fringes of society.
For Mr. Brotherton, "conspiracy theories thrive in the mainstream."
Until the controversy over the validity of Warren Commission's 1966 report on the Kennedy assassination, the
phrase "conspiracy theory" had a more neutral meaning, suggesting a plausible yet unproven claim about
multiple actors in a single event. Only in the aftermath of the Warren Commission did it become a derogatory
term used to suggest theories that subvert conventional wisdom. To those who doubted the commission's
finding that a single gunman killed Kennedy, Earl Warren became, Mr. Brotherton's says, the "figurehead in a
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031607
vast cover-up."
It is not easy to find an objective criterion that distinguishes the inquiry into a real conspiracy from one that
chases a pseudo-conspiracy. Both types rely are the eyewitnesses, documents and forensic evidence. The best
that Mr. Brotherton can offer on this score is to cite Stewart Potter's famous comment on pornography: "I
know it when I see it." In the context of suspicious minds, though, one person might see a plausible case for a
conspiracy and another only outlandish connections. The distinction is in the mind of the beholder.
Mr. Brotherton offers a sample list of conspiracy theories, including ones alleging that Abraham Lincoln was
assassinated on the orders of his vice president; that the moon landing was faked; that Area 51 in New Mexico
is home to extra-terrestrial technology under government auspices; that President Obama is "a communist
Muslim from Kenya." Such theories are meant to show that suspicious minds leap to absurd conclusions.
These are chosen because there is no evidence to support them.
The picture changes, however, if we consider, for example, the theory claiming that Lincoln's assassin, John
Wilkes Booth was part of a larger conspiracy backed by the Confederacy. On April 14, 1865, at about the same
time that Booth shot Lincoln, one of his associates stabbed Secretary of State William Seward and another
stalked Vice President Andrew Johnson with a loaded gun. The military commission appointed by President
Johnson, after hearing 371 witnesses testify and after examining Confederate bank transfers and cipher
communications, concluded that the three attacks were part of a conspiracy sponsored by the Confederacy and
convicted eight of Booth's associates, four of whom were hanged. Here we have a conspiracy theory
proceeding not from crackpots but from a government commission backed by the new president and most
members of Lincoln's cabinet.
Clearly the defects in the brain's wiring that lead to crazy theories may lead to the confirmation of theories that
are adopted by rational people. Indeed, the confirmation bias can work in contradictory ways: confirming not
only conspiracy theories but the impulse to reject them in favor of conventional wisdom. Can this defect be
corrected? Here I am reminded of a Woody Allen's absolutely brilliant 1996 comedy "Everyone Says I Love
You," in which the once-liberal son of a New York liberal family starts spouting conservative theories until a
doctor solves the problem by restoring the proper flow of oxygen to his brain. The movie has a happy ending
when the son goes back to spouting his family's liberal theories. While Mr. Brotherton offers no such remedy
to our brain's defects, he does offer a thought-provoking analysis and an appealing guide to thinking about
conspiracies, real and imagined.
—Mr. Epstein most recent book is "The Annals of Unsolved Crimes." He is currently writing a book about
Edward Snowden.
http://www.wsj . com/article s/theyre-not-really-out-to-get-you-1450471512
Happy New Year
Ed
www.edwardjayepstein.com
please note
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031608
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031609