# Why we believe conspiracy theories, BBC online



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*BBC NEWS ONLINE
Monday, 24 September, 2001, 18:09 GMT 19:09 UK
Why we need conspiracy theories* (written soon after the WTC attacks)

Conspiracy theories make the world seem safer
By BBC News Online's Charlotte Parsons

The moon landing was faked, Princess Diana was murdered and JFK was the victim of an elaborate CIA assassination plot.

*When major historic events shake our world, conspiracy theories are seldom far behind.*

The US terror attacks are no exception. The dust had barely settled on New York before the cloaks and daggers came out.

Less than two weeks after the disaster, BBC News Online found itself inundated with e-mails seeking confirmation of the various theories now circling the globe.

Hundreds of them cite a web page that lambasted the CNN for stirring up anti-Arab sentiment by running "fake footage" of Palestinians cheering over the attacks on the US.

If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life

*Psychology Professor Cary Cooper*

The news network is accused of digging out 10-year-old images of celebrations that followed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and passing them off as Palestinian displays of anti-Americanism.

The allegations can be traced back to a message posted on Chicago Indymedia's website.

"Think for a moment about the impact of such images," the text urges visitors. "This kind of broadcast has a very high possibility of causing waves of anger and rage against the Palestinians."

Another popular theory holds that the Israelis working in the World Trade Center left the building shortly before the attacks. In a similar vein, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is said to have cancelled a visit that would have placed him in New York on 11 September.

The implication: The terror attacks were a trick designed to turn world opinion against Israel's Muslim enemies.

*The theories are unsourced, unfounded and untrue. But they are spreading fast.*

*Human nature*

*This begs the question: Where do conspiracy theories come from? What is it in human nature that drives us to create alternative worlds peopled by shadowy figures?*

Are we paranoid, delusional or just plain bored?

According to Psychology Professor Cary Cooper we are trying to stave off fear of random violence and unpredictable death.

*"They do that because they can't come to terms with the fact that it could be just a few people," said Professor Cooper, who lectures at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

"If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life. If this can happen, what sense of security can you have?"

We create alternate realities because we reject the world where a single madman can bring down a president, a reckless driver can snuff out a princess... and a few men with knives can terrorise a country.*

The internet helps the theories grow and spread. An estimated 36,000 Princess Diana conspiracy web sites were created after her death.

*Ripple effect*

Professor Cooper predicts that, in the weeks ahead, US terror attack theories will expand and become attributed to an ever larger group of culprits.

"We simply can't believe a small number of people could be behind it," he says, adding that a similar ripple effect followed the John F Kennedy shooting.

*Conspiracy theories are not unique to Western culture. Experts say they have operated in many societies throughout history.

On a certain psychological level, we appear to need them.

Giving misery and injustice an identity makes life more bearable, according to Jeffrey Bale, who writes for an online magazine that examines the phenomenon.*

"Conspiracy theories account for current crises and upheavals and explain why bad things are happening to good people or vice versa," he said."

---------------------------------------------------------------

We try to make sense of the unknown, the random acts of misery in our lives. I'll buy that one. Or is this also a British conspiracy theory?
This article makes a lot of sense to me as I'm fascinated by human psychology. That also affects my POV. I've said many times, though I'm really an artsy, creative type person, I should have been a profiler at Quantico. My hero? John Douglas, famous profiler, and Clarice Starling from "Silence of the Lambs". LOL. Also loved "Se7en" ... am in love with Morgan Freeman who always ends up in that same type of role. Poor guy, great actor. Maybe it's a conspiracy to give him only old nearly-retired cop roles. :twisted:

I find it heartbreaking that the police HAD to hold back info in the JonBenet Ramsey case so that the real killer/killers could be found. That included DNA under her fingernails that did not belong to the Ramseys. I know a lot about this story as the Ramseys now live in my home state.

O.J. Simpson got off on a MURDER rap for about 5 different stupid reasons. We can't believe a famous football player could kill his own wife, though this stuff happens every day to average people; spouse on spouse violence is extremely common. It was a racist "set up" if it involved the great O.J.Simpson.

Often information is held back from civilians as it is used to protect us. If we said, "We are now going to thwart a terrorist attack that is going to happen in 3 days in an Idaho shopping mall" -- well, what is the point of that? Information is held back in crimes to ferret out the bad guys.

I was always interested in psychology/psychiatry/neurology as I've had anxiety, DP/DR, depression my whole life. I'm also fascinated by serial killers and criminals. Lee Harvey Oswald, if you read about him, was a severely disturbed individual. We don't want to accept that one disturbed person can kill a President, or kill John Lennon for instance.

We don't like random catastrophe. It has to be a plot, something we can "understand" and control, or life (as it is in reality) is truly "out of control" and we have no conrol of it. Yes, sadly, I could be killed in an auto accident tomorrow, just as Princess Diana was. Famous people die in car accidents. Innocent civilians die in catastrophes.

Best,
D
I have to stop now for a while or my hands will fall off, and I'll go blind from looking at this screen. The internet is a dangerous place. I need to read a book now.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2007)

.....


----------



## mind^partizan (Nov 11, 2006)

I am still the same person,

Why would media do that? Why would they aid terrorists? Why would they try to have such influance on American peoples minds?

I will remind you, if you dont know, that American media is one of the worst in the First World. Its a fact. Recently i saw the ranking of the medias in different countries, and the American one is ranked really low in terms of independence and some other criteria, dont ask me, i dont remember details. It is very logical. The whole media in America is controlled by 5 corporations. I LEARNED IT IN SCHOOL!

So, this fact just aids the belief that media is covering government, which makes major decisions affecting these corporations...Tell me is it not reasonable to you?

I would also want to remind you that everyone outside America, is able to see the big picture better. Because the media is not that obliged to represent private capital`s interests outside US. Ordinary people living outside US has a considerably better opportunity to understand these issues better, if they wish. So Americans are disadvantaged on this in a way, not to their fault..

When i moved to Canada, i was able to watch CNN. It sucks! During the whole time, i never saw some serious discussion of critics that talk over these issues affecting so many people! Thats incredibly strange, to say the least. Your media is like leading people to think only one way, nobody discusses or wonders about anything else, except that how Bin Laden has to be hunted and how dangerous are terrorists everywhere. And the series called "Know Your Enemy", refering to Bin Laden , was making me sick. Complete brainwashing. its not even funny.

In addition. I will aks you what do think, why did the media almost havent showed the Pentagon being hit, they didnt even talk about that at all! WHY??? Why didnt they repeat and repeat building 7 collapsing? I will tell you the reason (which i learned from ALex Jones), because NO PLANE hit either Pentagon , nor Building 7. Pentagon attack is kept in secret, and the government just revealed 5 frames of a video "to clear things up once and for all, who are not clear". These frames dont show any plane crashing into Pentagon! But the official story is what?...thats right.

Building 7...what made it fall? It wasnt hit by a plane! It was demolished by controlled demolishion, which was admitted officialy. BUT, to prepare such precise demolition TAKES ABOUT A WEEK, which is reasonable if u even dont kno anything about controlled demolitions. Why would they prepare to demlish it a week before attacks? There is only one possibility - certain people knew about attacks.

Also, Pentagon is like the most important and protected building in the world. HOW ON EARTH COULD A PASSANGER AIRLINER BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO IT??? (which is the official story)... No this is funny, ill admit


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2007)

mind^partizan, how are you?

I am not insinuating the media do this on purpose, call it a side effect.
All I'm saying is, I think we all felt a little more vulnerable after the attack.
I don't live in America, or anywhere near it, I didn't hear all the conspiracies.
All we saw was the footage of the plane crashing into the the tower, again and again and again, you could not escape it, everyone was talking about it, it was front page for weeks.
Can you honestly tell me the media don't focus on the negative, they love this shit.
so by covering this story with such motivation they aid in the terror campaign, don't they? Whether they mean to or not.

G.


----------



## mind^partizan (Nov 11, 2006)

Yea, sure, they like it. Its sad that media dont work to aid people, they work for themselves as always, even in cases of such crisis, they still just look for profit and aiding the society moves far behind. Its pure capitalism, where human life has a price tag. Although in America , they dont have much choice. It is not independent, of course not to the extent as for example in Russia, but...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

mind^partizan said:


> Yea, sure, they like it. Its sad that media dont work to aid people, they work for themselves as always, even in cases of such crisis, they still just look for profit and aiding the society moves far behind. Its pure capitalism, where human life has a price tag. Although in America , they dont have much choice. It is not independent, of course not to the extent as for example in Russia, but...


Sigh, everything is a business deal. Most people are indeed out for a buck of some kind. Do you think drug dealers sell crank for the enjoyment of it? Sometimes I think I should deal drugs so I don't have to worry about $, LOL. Or I'll become a "lady of the evening."

Bottom line, people need to earn a living if they work. And yes, moguls take over. Donald Trump happens to be a huge real estate mogul. This is nothing new. His kids also work for him. Car manufacturers want to own huge chuncks of the market -- they want money! That is the nature of capitalism. That is simply how it works.

Yes, media, like Hollywood wants to make money. But there are programs here in the US that are good media programs, such as PBS, Charlie Rose, Larry Elder, Meet the Press, etc. I also get CBC, and can see the BBC on PBS, as well as Al Jazeera, granted it's a pain to watch.

I don't depend on average TV media like local news or CNN (I don't have cable anyway). It depends on the lowest common denominator. Showing the WTC attacks over and over and over is like watching a train wreck. This is nothing new. When a catastrophe happens we watch it over and over and over. I remember I almost puked after Princess Diana's death -- granted I admired her in many ways, but her death was covered in such detail it was stunning.

Big news sells soap. Watching TV for hours on end guarantees sponsors can get their commercials out so you'll buy their products, from cleaning supplies to makeup, to auto insurance, etc. I see commercials on CBC.

*One must READ, from many different sources. There used to be a time when there was no television and no internet. Film news was used in theatres. But the explosion of TV and the internet has changed things.

Ya gotta go with the times. As I said, the world has changed.*

I don't watch my local news. It is about who got shot in what gang activity, an huge fire on the freeway, a freeway chase, and a nice kid who did something good that day.

People watch VISUAL media for VISUALS. If you go into a book store or a library you will find MANY magazines such as Foreign Affairs -- that are not palatable to the average person. You have to actually READ them and there are no pretty pictures.

This isn't about the psychololgy of the effects of the media, it is the psychology of conspiracies and how most of us want the simplest snippet of news -- mainly what the weather and driving conditions are, etc.

Sigh.
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I prefer an open media -- some of it crap (and I include the internet) -- than to live in countries where the government literally has one TV station that is all propaganda about their illustrious leader.

Western nations have tremenous access to all manner of information.

I'd rather live here, again, than in North Korea, etc., etc., etc.

Deal with the crap and sort it out. That's what school is for. To learn how to learn. To pick out the crap from the more viable sources of information.

The media is no different from a business like NIKE who sells $100 dollar tennis shoes, OMG. And all this X-Box business. The record buisiness. Do you really think that these businesses have any greater purpose than making money?

That's the way of the world. Some have small businesses and get along. Some fail. Some are extremely successful.

Sigh again.
I shouldn't say this Mind^Partizan as you'll say I'm old, LOL, but you have to get older and wiser. The longer you live, the more you see what the world is like. Beautiful and ugly. And one day you'll have a job, and guess what, you'll have bills, and you'll want to make money, unless you wish the government to take care of you.

But that isn't what you want -- you don't want goverment intervention.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Sadly, also, no one got the point of the article I posted. No reaction to the psychology of why people believe in conspiracies.

Also, seeing two planes smash into the world trade center is far more visually "exciting" than watching a plane crash into the pentagon. It was the "big show" the terrorists wanted.


----------



## mind^partizan (Nov 11, 2006)

Oh God, i cant believe. How can you ignore the fact that we werent shown the Pentagon being hit? How can you explain this by : its more visually entertaining'? Now its scary. IT IS SCARY TO ME. Complete ignorance and unwillingness to get the answers. Its so dangerous. ..


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

mind^partizan said:


> Oh God, i cant believe. How can you ignore the fact that we werent shown the Pentagon being hit? How can you explain this by : its more visually entertaining'? Now its scary. IT IS SCARY TO ME. Complete ignorance and unwillingness to get the answers. Its so dangerous. ..


MP,
You didn't read one word I said. Not one word. It so happens the TV cameras, cell phone cameras, tourist cameras, were first on the scene at the WTC, and it was GOLD for the TV stations and the most shocking to watch.

There was no "exciting footage" of the Pentagon. And how many people wanted to stare at the ruins of a plane in Shanksville, PA? Not only did we see the results of ONE plane crashing into the WTC, but we saw the OTHER plane crash into it.

If you ran a media station you'd know why. Also, the Pentagon is a highly secured government building. They don't like anyone snapping photos around there. I used to live close to Selfrdige airforce base. It was two years before they reopened the base to tourists. They have yearly air shows, and old planes and an ANG museum. YES, I've been there.

The point. Had they hit the White House, which was the goal of United 93 to the best of everyone's understanding, they would try to get footage of that. Tourists would have more footage, but my bet is, they would be less likely to show THAT footage than that of a public building where some 2,500+ people were killed.

People like DRAMA for the Love of GOD man. We were watching "The Towering Inferno" in real life. These other buildings were evacuated early on, or people hid in thier respective bunkers to PLAN WHAT THE HELL TO DO. WE THOUGHT THIS WAS WAR. I DID.

We want our seat of military action on camera as we figure what we're going to do? As far as we knew we were going to be hit again and again.

My mother had died at 2am on 9/12/2006 if you can believe it. I was in her Nursing Home. All of the staff were so busy and the patients so sick no one really paid attention to the TV. I drove home at 4:30am on 9/12/2006. I knew very little of what had happened. I turned on every radio station. ALL THE SAME NEWS, all speculation.

I said, as I didn't give a shit at the time, "Oh great, we're at war, went home and cried."

Also, I could give you a million details of why you can't say where the President is during such a crisis. Or the VP. They were "gone" for some time. REason ... security! For the Love of God, think.

And again, we were watching people DIE, not Dead people. Whatever damage was done to the Pentagon and the other plane wasn't "exciting visual news." What do you see more of on TV? Car crashes, police chases or a burning building?

I give up. You don't even respond to my posts.

I really am through. Again, I feel insulted. You think I don't care about this?

:roll: 
OK, you win. It's all a government conspiracy.

Now what? What do I do now?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

It's not a debate if there is no exchage of ideas. So we're not debating. I love debating.

Also, when Bush was on TV for that children's school visit. A que card dude was behind the camera, and after Andrew Card whispered that the WTC had been hit, the cue card guy said, "Don't say anything, Don't get up right now." Sorry, he HELD UP A CUE CARD... that said that. The teacher in the room was very grateful that no scene was made. Bush continued for a few more minutes while the secret service where getting ready to figure out what to do. Then foomp he was off.

We didn't want to give things away. For all we knew, someone knew where Bush was and was going to bomb the school. He was then off on AirForce One without saying peep in a flash.

There's such things as national security and the secret service, etc.

Oh, My, God, this is so stupid of me to be discussing this.

Sorry MP. You win.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2007)

.....


----------



## mind^partizan (Nov 11, 2006)

Oh yea, security reasons. And people wouldnt like to watch Pentagon being hit. But they could have shown it at least once, but they didnt. They showed a video(5 frames) with explosion, but no plane can be seen. Also, there were no plane remains beside Pentagon, just smoking building side with some small debris everywhere and the hole where the plane supposedly hit the building, was way too little. Also, what about Building 7?
Sorry, i know its your topic and im talking off topic, the last time. And also im surprised about how much you trust your government, really. You dont even doubt anything. Your belief of being the greatest country is so strong that you cant consider anything possibly denying that. Because your leaders through years were always raising americans`pride, narcissism and now is the time when they manipulate it. Unfortunatewlly, for evil purposes which make other people suffer. If the actions of US foreign politics wouldnt affect thge whole world, i wouldnt care at all. Because what you do inside is your business. But now, people die everyday, because , according to you, your president is just an idiot. There are two ways from this. What kind of population can ellect an idiot to be their president? (im not concluding anything, im just pondering) The other option is: he is not an idiot, he is a war criminal.

Thanks


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> We believe in conspiracies to maintain the illusion that we have some sort of control over our lives


Isn't that a contradiction?

I don't believe this anyway. I don't think the psychopathology of conspiracy theories, as such, is as dark as you describe. I'm sure most conspiracy theorists are just opportunists - getting somekind of perverse enjoyment out of bashing (not questioning - there is a difference) the status quo, and who usually have some minor grudge that they have blown out of all proportion - or some other agenda that is personal to them alone. Only a tiny amount of people believe in the wilder conspiracy theories - because they can be dismissed after a few moments of contemplation. It's only within the 'conspiracy' community that these ideas are allowed, ney - enouraged to flourish. Occassionally a stubborn 'theory' will enter the mainstream consciousness - resulting in perhaps a documentory, or an article in the newspaper, at best.

I think I understand why the originators of conspiracy theories do it, but I'm not sure if I understand why people lap it up so readily. I dunno - perhaps it's for the same reasons.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2007)

.....


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Im still the same person said:


> Martin wrote: Ins't that a contradiction?
> 
> How so?
> 
> ...


G.
I didn't write that article, it is from the BBC online, written by someone who is interested in the pschology of conspiracy theories. Again, G., you say you didn't read my post thouroughly. Then how can you respond?

You also say I explain too much. Perhaps, but then, MP wants us to watch several videos (one which is three hours long, or the total viewing time is 3+ hours long). MP wants MORE responses, yet he doesn't believe anything I say.

In true debate, one is assigned one's OPPOSITE POV, i.e. in a true debate I would be asked to argue FOR conspiracy theories. It is a way to see the other POV. I see how someone might buy into some of it, but I find some truth the the BBC article. Although, that article could be a conspiracy. :roll:

MP. I think all they had at the Pentagon was a parking lot securtiy tape, LOL. (Again, my husband works for the Federal Government and knows how inneffectual it is due to red tape.) That isn't so exciting to watch on TV.

We also have fighters for attacks from OUTSIDE the U.S. not INSIDE. We did not anticipate an attack from civilian planes from inside the US. Clinton cut our military budge considerably I believe. We don't think ahead, only in the short run.

I think planes are now safer. I'd be less inclined to ride the tube/subway these days. Recall the ricin poisoning in the Japanese subway? And for instance, El Al airlines, sp? again, the Israeli airline has never been hijacked. They got their act together in 1974 or so. They have been nailed so many times in different ways, you have to practically have your underwear examined to get on a plane.

I also visited the FORMER Soviet Union where my passport was taken away at a security checkpoint and exchanged for a "visitor's passport". Each of us entering the cities were put in cubicles with one man who had a rifle strapped to his back. Scared the shit out of me. Gave me the fifth degree. Also, at that time I could only shop in the "Birioska" sp?, the "American/European" stores for souveniers, not the regular shops. You got your passport back upon another return inspection.

*MP, as I said, we have to agree to disagree.*

And I didn't write that article for goodness sake. I was reasearching the psychology of conspiracy thinking and that came up on Google ... it is very common.

And again, I don't care to be insulted. I am trying to understand what the Hell is going on in the world.

We simply don't agree, at least on the 9/11 conspiracy at miniumum. It makes no sense to me. This isn't a discussion, and I guess I disagreed with you. But you had your mind up from the start and so did I. This is how wars start. Mrs. O'Leary's cow knocks over the bucket in the barn and there begins the story ... and no one can remember what started the mess to begin with.

Done,
D


----------



## mind^partizan (Nov 11, 2006)

Ok, considering how the topic is called, i`ll try thinking of the psychology why do i believe that 9/11 was organized by the gov. and so on. Although the evidence, the logical stream of events and motives to be so , are pretty clear to me, i can still recognize a strong feeling in myself that they have to be lying and fooling the people in a big way. That might be in my genes actually, because my country was under Soviet repression for 50 years till 1991. That could have grown (into my grandparents and parents) a deep-seated anxiety of being controlled/manipulated, restricted very much , with the sense of needing to escape the dominant power. I can recognise this all the time in myself, for example, from an early age i would always support the losing side, lets say in sports, and when the losing side would go into the lead, it just wouldnt be interesting as much :lol: , so that may imply that the process of resistance and coming back is important to me. Its a strong tendency i have. Same here. I just cant stand power which manipulates you. My adrenaline rises with the need to resist, to fight for the truth.

Also, im quite inflexible as a person. I either trust people completely (naiveness) or always suspect them and watch them carefully, so to prevent them from hurting me somehow. Its probably from childhood where i could have had painful experience. I think there is a fact that humans` fear of humilation is second , just after fear of death, so maybe i was humiliated a few times :?

Also, im very sensitive about things limiting my feedom or independence. Freedom of thought even. I cant believe i would be considered a criminal in Germany, if I would only DOUBT the fact of Holocaust as a historical event. How can anybody forbid me doubt anything?

Hopefully this time i got into the topic better.


----------



## Cam (Dec 13, 2006)

?Humans detest uncertainty.
Uncertainties produce anxieties.
To reduce anxiety, if no factual structure is readily available, humans will simply invent one
or accept a ready- to- wear media reality structure, these perceptions, of coarse are fictional Constructs.?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

MP, interesting. I appreciate your talking about your background as I think this IS important re: how we respond to events around us.

I have a ferocious need to be "in control", in the sense of "trying to understand everything" which of course is impossible, as my life from childhood was extremely out of control.

It's strange, my mother was the ultimate "status quo", but she was also so cruel and impossible to understand, you would have thought I'd rebel against it. I also when to a private school -- but I appreciated the predictability and comfort of consistency and discipline there.

If anyone ever brainwashed me, into feeling I was a piece of dirt, it was my mother. My school made me feel the opposite.

So, I'd say, I try to find the most rational explanation for things. Things that get too complicated (and I guess, for example, it's difficult for me mostly to believe that many people could be in on a huge conspiracy) -- well, I have to sort them out, down to their most basic parts.

At any rate, I can only say, if we look at who we are as individuals, we see how an individual personality for example sees the world very differently from the next person. That leads to wonderful things such as variety of thought and interaction, but also leads to fierce disagreement, even war.

Oh, just thought of something. Bush should never have called this a "War on Terrorism", anymore than whoever started using the term "War on Drugs." Using the latter as an example, drug culture has infiltrated all aspects of society. It is guerilla warfare, not the same thing as team A against team B. That is another mistake Bush has made which is going to lead us nowhere in this mess.

I was researching a bit about the Pentagon last night, reading the 9/11 Commission report which I poke at on and off. Too many damned names, so many acronyms CentCon, DefCon, FTC, FEMA, yada, yada, yada.

I could see that people might wonder, why isn't there more information on the Pentagon. But as noted, it was taken care of far easier than the WTC. It said, total killed were 66 people killed on American 77, 125 people in the Pentagon were killed (70 civilians and 55 military service members) and about 100 were injured. (See stuff starting on page 311).

Of course that's too many people.

But the purpose of the 9/11 report is in analyzing what happened, how someone could use our own planes against us. And how to improve security and reponse to disaster.

At the pentagon they have a very good integrated response team with local and Pentagon officials. WTC was mass confusion. Also, as I said, it was a more horrifying thing to look at ... it was a "work in progress" ... it lasted hours and involved the death of over 2,000 people.

1. If no one even considered an attack from WITHIN the country of this magnitude, we weren't even watching for it.
2. Protocol was followed by pre-planned Pentagon action that would have invoved all-out war. There was no such protocol for a civilian structure such as the WTC.
3. The Pentagon is a one-story building which was easily evacuated, and has military bunkers, etc. already in it.

A military-like coordinated response to disaster there was more organized than an insane lack of ability to respond to an insane event on the WTC.

I can say, OK, where's the footage? But have you seen much of what's left of ANY of the planes? They were all flying so low and so fast they were... pulverized.

I won't go on. I wish there were more discussion of the Pentagon, but it doesn't make me doubt it happened. It was not the focus of an ongoing mess that took YEARS to clean up.

I read somewhere that had the Pentagon been the only thing hit, there would have been a week of reporting, showing the same (boring) crash site over and over and over.

Anyway, appreciate your contribution. Who we are, how we were raised, where we were raised, does influence our reaction to a huge event like this.

Again, I have a need to find a rational explanation. I also would like to believe, and believe there are other forms of life in space (microbes certainly) and could believe there are other planets out there, populated by who knows? But until I am fully convinced, I hold off on embracing certain theories of hidden spaceships, etc.

So, I guess, I look for the most logical, down to Earth example in things. My life has been WAY too crazy and full of lies to NOT look at things that way. I'm reacting AGAINST my childhood myself.

D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> To reduce anxiety, if no factual structure is readily available, humans will simply invent one
> or accept a ready- to- wear media reality structure, these perceptions, of coarse are fictional Constructs.?


Chameleon, not sure what you're saying here, but consider a murder, any murder.

My favorite example for some reason as Capote is staring at me from a poster over my computer, lol, is "In Cold Blood". An entire family is killed in a small town where there is never any crime.

It was not an easy crime to solve. It took time. Bottom line, in the mean time, there were all kinds of speculation including every crazy theory that you could think of.

It takes time to find the facts of something. Until they're discovered, I particularly dislike the endless speculation of the media. This happened for 10 years in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It still persists in the deaths of other famous and not so famous people.

Yes, people want to fill in the blanks. I believe that. We don't want to live with uncertainty. And we fill in the blanks ourselves. But that doesn't mean we have found the Truth. And I believe there is Truth out there. "The Truth is Out There." It has to be.

X happens, it happens. Unless we truly believe life is a complete illusion that has no firm basis.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

The article makes some good points which I can't really counter.

I've heard similar ideas before and quite honestly I think some of them are BS.

For example there was one about JFK: "People have a hard time believing random and nonsensical events could happen so they make up complex fantasies about how it could happen".

Well, on one level that holds some truth. But on another level its BS.

Why?

People simply DO NOT just pick up a gun and shoot someone for no reason. There's always an energetic/emotional/mental motivation to do something like that.

In other words, nothing happens for no reason by complete and random chance. Therefore, passing off important and world-changing phenomena as such is damaging to our collective lives.

Additionally, as far as anxiety provoking events go, there's a way to quell that as well: Tell us the fucking truth! If the people in power and in charge of dispensing information didn't constantly omit truths, refuse to tell the truth and tell us we are not privvy to certain information, then we wouldn't have to second guess them all the time.

The other way, of course, is to not create circumstances where our countries will be attacked. Say, for example, not putting our fingers into other countries' pie and not trying to control their politics.

But you know, maybe that just makes too much sense :roll:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CECIL said:


> People simply DO NOT just pick up a gun and shoot someone for no reason. There's always an energetic/emotional/mental motivation to do something like that.


This is absolutely correct. If you look into the life story of Lee Harvey Oswald you will find a very disturbed man, confused about his personal identity, his political leanings etc. Someone like that does have "reasons" albeit "off the wall." Oswald was a very sick man.

The guy who shot John Lennon was mentally ill. He stalked him. He worshipped Lennon. I forgot all the details, but I think he heard voices telling him to kill Lennon. Oh Lord, I forgot the details. Google Lennon and you'll get details on this guy who killed him and was subsequently put in a psychiatric facility. I hate it when I can't remember someone's name!

OJ Simpson had a history of violence towards his wife, even his past wife as I recall. He had abused Nicole Brown forever. He was so possessive of her it is possible he had to kill her so no one else could have her. It sounds illogical, but if you read about the psychology of violent criminals you'll come upon this sort of stuff.

I don't know how you can say someone "doesn't just shoot a gun for no reason." That's what we call "motive" in the court system.

Think of every serial killer you've ever read about. They have "reasons" albeit irrational ones. Then people who murder spouses, business partners, gang members who shoot other gang members. They have a reason. We kill. People kill each other.

Not sure what you're saying Cecil, can you explain?

D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> In other words, nothing happens for no reason by complete and random chance. Therefore, passing off important and world-changing phenomena as such is damaging to our collective lives.


Also, CECIL, you actually contradict yourself unless I'm missing something. You say exactly what the article discusses. You agree with the article, then turn around and say "nothing happens by random chance." But it does! And those who need to "fill in the blanks" are trying to make "sense and meaning" out of what is often a stupid senseless event.

I do not have faith that all people are good. Many of us have very innate destructive instincts, and some people, criminals for example seem to have no conscience sp?

If any random person is murdered on the street, especially an innocent person, who is mistakenly caught in the crossfire of a robbery or something. That is a random happening. The person could be famous or not known for anything.

If Nicole Brown had been married to someone we didn't know, her murder and Ron Goldman's murder would never have made the papers. There are I don't know how many car accidents a day, that kill so many people. But when Princess Diana is killed in an auto accident (the most dangerous way to travel), here comes the conspiracy theories.

We find it hard to believe a Princess, especially this "special" Princess could die in such a mundane, unnecessary way. But she did. Instead, we "make sense of it" by creating a complex story that keeps us less frightened of how unpredictable life is.

Any of us, well known or not, could die at any time, from anything. Life is short, precious. And death is inevitable for all of us.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh Lordy I can't stop. We have gotten all sorts of information about all of these incidents. People either choose to believe them or not, and this is open to debate. The fact that we are debating this is proof of that.

Planes have been hijacked in the past, but we thought it was something that didn't happen anymore. That's just stupidity. Security on planes was lax for years and years. Then we get socked in the head, and go, "OK, now we have to be more careful with airplane security."

We respond to what happens to us, we don't respond to what DOESN'T happen, or what we don't anticipate.

There were no red lights and stop signs, until there were more cars and people started slamming into them. My father grew up in a town that had two cars -- he was born in 1906. He said the two cars in that town ended up crashing into each other, lol. Then they put up a stop sign at the intersection they hit each other at.

(Note, I'm not that old. My father was 53 when I was born.)


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

I'm speaking from my spiritual beliefs which you may not agree with. But that is that everyone creates their reality and with good reason. Every event is significant and happens for a reason (hence the no random freak occurrence).

If a person is gunned down in the street then at some level of their being they agreed for it to happen and there was personal meaning in it for both them and the gunman.

If a president of the US is assassinated it happens for a reason. It is a world-changing event and has significance and meaning for a great many people. I think that passing it off as "What a shame, that whacko nailed him" is doing it a great disservice.


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

CECIL said:


> *If a person is gunned down in the street* then at some level of their being they *agreed* for it to happen and there was personal meaning in it for both them and the gunman.
> 
> .


WHAT????? explain please??? im extremelly sceptical that a person can agree to get gunned down , even in some sort of metaphysical spritual being sense?


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

falling_free said:


> [WHAT????? explain please??? im extremelly sceptical that a person can agree to get gunned down , even in some sort of metaphysical spritual being sense?


Everyone has to die, somehow and someplace. If you happen to believe that our energy is eternal and that you can live an infinite number of lives and if you happen to believe that before your birth you choose and create the circumstances of your life, then you may also believe that anything that happens in life is merely an experience that we are learning from.

Some people may choose to grow old and die of natural causes. Others may develop life-threatening illnesses so that they can learn emotional, mental and spiritual lessons. Others may spend 500 lives dying in the most horrific ways imaginable just to experience what its like. Its all valid and from a spiritual perspective its all a game, its all fun.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Also, CECIL, you actually contradict yourself unless I'm missing something. You say exactly what the article discusses. You agree with the article, then turn around and say "nothing happens by random chance." But it does! And those who need to "fill in the blanks" are trying to make "sense and meaning" out of what is often a stupid senseless event.


Ok, basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm one of these "nut jobs" that likes to find sense and meaning in things, instead of being content to pass it off as coincidence and random chemical chance.

You see, when I tried to do the latter I fell into a dead world and developed a mental health disorder called "Depersonalisation". Since rediscovering the former my life and world have become much more bright and alive.

You don't have to agree with me, that's just what works for me


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CECIL said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> > Also, CECIL, you actually contradict yourself unless I'm missing something. You say exactly what the article discusses. You agree with the article, then turn around and say "nothing happens by random chance." But it does! And those who need to "fill in the blanks" are trying to make "sense and meaning" out of what is often a stupid senseless event.
> ...


OK, but see here, you are coming from a spiritual POV which I didn't know. That changes the whole debate.

And again we'd have to agree to disagree.

But then the bottom line of all of this is you believe in violence! You believe in the very war you are furious about. You believe that Bush was MEANT to be in power. If that is the case, then this is all completely out of our control. We have no free will and can't control anything in our lives.

The concept of being in an auto accident, or a conspiracy to go to war, was meant to be.

Then there is no debate.

So you and I have to disagree. I believe that life is indeed based on who we are, what humans are made of, but that we have an innate tendecy towards violence. And I agree, how could someone "agree to get gunned down"?

Also, your theory doesn't fit. I have chronic DP/DR and have really all of my life. I am not a spiritual person and have been in those horrible existential holes. But I don't agree in the least with what you've said.

Again, we disagree, and that's fine.

D


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> But then the bottom line of all of this is you believe in violence! You believe in the very war you are furious about. You believe that Bush was MEANT to be in power. If that is the case, then this is all completely out of our control. We have no free will and can't control anything in our lives.


Just to clarify, I believe violence is a valid expression of energy. I don't believe its the best course for us to be taking. I believe if Bush is in power then that has some meaning - it reflects the attitudes of the population as a whole. If the attitudes of the collective consciousness is that we need to be invading other countries, then I think we have a lot to learn as a collective.

Of course we have free will and we definately have ultimate control over our lives. "Be the change you want to see in the world", is what Ghandi said. Its a very grass roots movement: If enough people decide to change themselves and stop investing in this corrupt and decaying system we've built, then it all just sort of crumbles away while we create something new and beautiful underneath.



> I believe that life is indeed based on who we are, what humans are made of, but that we have an innate tendecy towards violence.


Yeah I'm the opposite. I believe that in our natural state (e.g. when we are first born) we have a tendency towards love and harmony, but as we go through our lives we become wounded, which bends our energy towards other more destructive tendencies. Nothing can't be healed, though.



> Also, your theory doesn't fit. I have chronic DP/DR and have really all of my life. I am not a spiritual person and have been in those horrible existential holes. But I don't agree in the least with what you've said.
> 
> Again, we disagree, and that's fine.


Yep, that's fine  Like I said, this is just what works for me.


----------

