|
September 22, 2008
Not even a conspiracy theory -- much less "history"
I hate conspiracy theories, especially blogging about them. Even more do I hate spending my time checking them out to see whether they have any merit. That's because few reasonable people care. Reasonable people don't waste time with conspiracy theories, and tend not to believe them. So, if a conspiracy theory is "debunked," the reaction of reasonable people is a collective "so what?" OTOH, to the people who believe in conspiracy theories, there is no such thing as debunking. To the contrary; the latest scientific evidence is that debunking only heightens their determination to hold firm, dig in their heels, and relentlessly present "The Truth" -- and save the rest of us miserable people from our complacent selves. So, trust me when I say that few things are more tedious than what I did last night, which was to stream a very tedious BBC broadcast and listen in the hope of verifying the "evidence" in support of recent contention that not only was last week's economic bailout a Bish coup, but that sinister Bush coups run in the sinister Bush family. The Bush family, in the form of Prescott Bush, has tried a more aggressive coup before in order to install fascism in this country. This treasonous plot was called "the Business Plot," because the high-level plotters - including Prescott Bush - were Wall Street men who openly supported fascism.The author argues that this "latest" Bush coup leaves us no choice but impeachment or revolution. (See Bob Owens's and Jeff Goldstein's thorough discussions of that, which Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday.) But for the "coups are a Bush family tradition" meme I would not have had much to add. And frankly, if the same argument had been made a writer at Rense.com or some other conspiracy site, I would not have bothered to examine the "evidence." The problem is, the author in question here -- Larisa Alexandrovna -- happens to be the managing news editor for Raw Story. The latter is a site I visit regularly, and while I knew it was liberal in its orientation, reading that the news editor thinks this way hardly inspires confidence. Nor is the author backing down from her claim of Prescott Bush's 1933 coup involvement. She has attacked her critics as "right wing idiots," and at her blog she also maintains -- apparently seriously -- that this is no conspiracy theory: Another one [critic] actually thinks that the infamous Business Plot is a conspiracy theory. So much for history lessons. Who needs them anyway, right?History lessons? Again, here's the "history" this Raw Story editor believes is so settled as to be beyond dispute: This treasonous plot was called "the Business Plot," because the high-level plotters - including Prescott Bush - were Wall Street men who openly supported fascism.While the Business Plot (which went nowhere) has been debated by historians, no one has cited a single legitimate historian anywhere who seriously maintains that Prescott Bush was involved -- much less as a "high level plotter." Instead, the people who are jumping on the "Bush Coup I" bandwagon cite as evidence a BBC radio show. Here's how it is described -- by the BBC: The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.Ugh. I hate seeing shit like that late on a Sunday night. Honestly, it felt like homework. Very ugly homework. But like the dutiful schoolboy I never really wanted to be, I did my duty, and I found the entirety of the interview archived here, and I listened for more than 27 minutes. At no point is there any allegation that Prescott Bush was involved in the Business Plot. From the show, starting at 20:07: ...a shipping company called HAL was accused of providing free passage to Germany to American journalists willing to write favorable copy on Hitler's rise to power. The company is also alleged to have brought Nazi spies and pro-fasicst sympathizers into America.The claim is also made that names were edited out of the government archives, which does not prove Prescott Bush's involvement in a coup. In short, there's nothing whatsoever to tie Prescott Bush to the coup. (Ironically, Ms. Alexandrovna is right to maintain that this is no conspiracy theory, because there's no evidence to support it.) This is confirmed in Prescott Bush's wiki entry, which contains a heading titled Alleged plot to overthrow FDR: On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the alleged Business Plot and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. The program does not in any way state or imply that Prescott Bush was involved in the plot. The program mentioned Bush's directorship of the Hamburg-America Line, a company that the committee investigated for Nazi propaganda activities, and the alleged 1933 attempt, supposedly led by Gerald MacGuire, to stage a military coup against President Franklin D. Roosevelt aimed at forcing Roosevelt to resign (or, failing that, to assassinate him) and at installing a fascist dictatorship in the United States. [6]OK, Wiki got it right -- but only about the contents of the actual audio portion of the radio program. However, it's simply inaccurate for Wiki to say that the program "does not in any way state or imply that Prescott Bush was involved in the plot" -- because the program description clearly states exactly that. Again, the BBC: The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bushâs Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.So, because there's a clear conflict between what Wiki says and what the BBC says, and because a news editor for a prominent web site asserts Prescott Bush's involvement in a coup is "history," I felt obligated to listen to it (and not take Wiki at its word). I suspect that some of the people citing the radio show as "proof" have not listened to it, but instead rely solely on the description. Whether this was a complete waste of time, I don't know. Those who want to believe Prescott Bush was involved in a coup may have an emotional need to believe that, so in that sense this is -- and always will remain -- undebunkable. This reminds me of the time I listened to a long radio interview with a crackpot who claimed he enjoyed sex and drugs with Barack Obama (and that the latter had acted as a sort of limousine tour guide even though he was a state representative at the time). I thought it was absolute nonsense, but I slogged through it, and eventually, the man's story was debunked. But at least there was an actual allegation made during the radio interview to be believed or disbelieved depending on whether you're a conspiracy theorist. In contrast, here there is no accuser, and no accusation. I don't think this rises to the level of a conspiracy theory. (Even for unreasonable people.) MORE: Back in 2004, Hugh Hewitt said something in another context that I think might -- and I mean might -- be helpful here: It would not be hard for intelligence services from around the world to build blogs with an intent to deceive or manipulate, putting out solid content to gain an initial audience before using it to disseminate disinformation intentionally.(Via Glenn Reynolds.) Of course, there's no showing that any intelligence service has been involved in promoting the "Bush family coup" disinformation. For starters, the BBC is not a blog. posted by Eric on 09.22.08 at 12:14 PM
Comments
Thanks for getting through it! American investment in immoral regimes has a long history, and the topic is beyond this post. However, Prescott Bush was out to make money, as have been many businessmen who invested in the Soviet Union, China, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Burma. These investments may be immoral, but they don't necessarily translate into political support or agreement with the regimes involved. Even Fritz Thyssen -- the guy Bush did business with -- eventually had a falling out with the Nazis over Kristallnacht, and fled Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Thyssen It's easy to judge this by 2008 standards. And of course, Bush's partner -- Democrat Averell Harriman -- usually seems to get a pass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Averell_Harriman Finally, if the Nazi investments were so fundamentally important (the sites scream that Bush "made his fortune" from them), then why weren't Bush and Harriman wiped out when they were seized? (The answer is that they were part of a gigantic corporate portfolio. But anyone can be linked to anything.) Eric Scheie · September 22, 2008 03:40 PM What are the odds that no one ever talked? Our only sources are people who weren't inside. That the captured German archives had no records? Or the Russian - not directly involved but successfully spying everywhere in the 1930-1940 decades? Hey! That only proves it is true. These people were so powerful they have erased the evidence here and abroad. They were so powerful they didn't remove a President they hated or his successor who pursued the same policies. Yep! That is real power. The old BS comes out of the cesspool just before presidential elections. There is even more when a Bush is involved. Call Dan Rather to get the facts. Read some 1933 speeches from Roosevelt. He really whacked the conservative wealthy classes. Mean statements. And in turn many hated him. It was a tough time and for over a decade democracy seemed to fail repeatedly. Only robots would not have wondered what ism would prevail. K · September 22, 2008 04:49 PM Read "The Plot to Seize the White House," about some fairly idle chatter concerning a coup in 1933. They talked to Marine General Smedley Butler about it, but never did decide upon a European model (Blackshirts, no; SA, no; Croix de Feu, maybe). They even had a little private newsletter, showing their ineptitude at conspiratorialism. A tempest in a demitasse. Bleepless · September 22, 2008 09:40 PM To a dedicated conspiracist, nothing is outside the theory. Even proof against it transmogrifies into supporting evidence ("see? we must have them rattled if they're going to such lengths to discredit us!"). Once you drink the conspiracy Kool-Aid, eventually everything, and I do not exaggerate, fits itself into the conspiracy theory. The theory comes to dominate the individual's worldview so that nothing is unrelated or random. I have no doubt that conspiracism is some form of mental illness. It seeks to tie up all of human experience into a tidy package of simple answers in which nothing is left to chance. Not even the most dogmatic religions provide that kind of moral assurance. The simplest dismissal of such nonsense was provided by Mark Steyn regarding 9/11 Truthers: "If 9/11 were really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with it on a bumpersticker." But to the True Believers, there has to be a deeper reason why the secret masters of the conspiracy permit thm to operate. Steve Skubinna · September 23, 2008 08:24 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Resurrection
Thirty Missing Investigators Condoleezza's Ambition My late "Astroturf roundup" Fannie Mae trivia question Who would Jesus tax? Master Of The Astroturf Politics Chicago Style Not even a conspiracy theory -- much less "history" There Is No Blockade Of Iran
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I don't know whether I should applaud your effort in promoting reason in the long twilight struggle against nonsense, or chide you for wasting your time. As it was an interesting read for me anyway, though I was never in danger of believing "Pres" Bush to be an insurrectionist, it has some value.
Lots of rich intellectuals were sympatheitc to fascist ideas in the 30's, in both Europe and America. They liked the Mussolini style better than the Hitler style, but it was widely believed at the time that democracy was moribund, going the way of monarchy into irrelevance. The only real choices, they thought, were going to be between fascist socialism and communist socialism, the new scientific approaches to government. It is a perspective which we might well deplore from the comfort of 2008, but we are absolutely unable to recreate their mindset -because we know what happened after. We now know that America was able to gear up rapidly and defeat the Axis and go on to become a superpower. Following the long collapse of communism, the representative democracies were left ascendant - enough so that Fukuyama suggested in the 90's that the superiority of this system was now common wisdom.
It did not look like that in 1933. It was all too easy to believe that the American experiment had been successful but was being superceded by even better forms of government. The massive deaths of WWI and the Russian Revolution seemed the new normal, unless drastic steps were taken.