At the same time, I have always wondered why, even before the advent of the whitosphere, people in the United States have had such a viscerally negative reaction to conspiracy theories. When unusual things occur in my world, I have a learned tendency to look for information about those anomalies and to explain them to myself as best I can, settling for my best hypothesis until it is disproved or confirmed.
And yet, the term "conspiracy theory" is used in the United States to discount without further investigation the hypothesis that people develop as well as to brand the hypothesizers as "conspiracy theorists", and therefore necessary not worth the time to understand and evaluate the hypothesies they have developed.
Nonetheless, I remember writing a long argument back in 2003 or so that conspiracy hypothesies are necessary at a time in which politicians keep their plans secret and obviously the FBI and CIA keep all or most of their activities secret, even while working assiduously to bring about outcomes that will effect hundreds of thousands or millions of people. I believe it is irresponsible and worse -- incurious -- for the public to wait for things to develop, while never wondering HOW they developed and WHO is behind them, and WHY.
If conspiracy theories are not worth out time and "outside of the mainstream", then why have the words "covert" and "clandestine" found their ways into our language and our dictionaries? In 2007-2008, the National Enquirer posited that John Edwards had engaged in an extramarital affair while running for president, and that he had engaged in a massive and concerted conspiracy to cover up the affair, moving the "other woman" around the country so that the press could not interview her, and not listing a father on the birth certificate of the woman's child, so that no one could definitively say that John Edwards was the father. A conspiracy was posited and a conspiracy was later proven and confessed.
This is why I make reference today to an essay written and posted by "donnybrook" over at 911blogger.com. Donnybrook offers a coherent theory as to why so-called "left-leaning" and progressive blogs like DailyKos and MyDD immediately ban users who speculate about why events occur in our political process. To the degree that there are unseen hands behind the political machinations that form the outline of our world, DailyKos and MyDD will not permit the left to discuss, disseminate information about or clarify the actions and purposes of those unseen hands.
What does the Central Intelligence Agency do, if not hatch and implement covert and conspiratorial activities? Why should we ignore these activities if we know they are taking place (otherwise why would the US Government have an entire agency devoted to this purpose)?
For example, why is DailyKos so sensitive against theories of how 9-11 really came to pass, even seven years after the fact, when alternative theories have been posted in so many other places, and evidence has been offered to cast serious doubt on the official story?
Donnnybrook says in an article entitled "Mockingbird Agenda at DailyKos":
Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Net's leading liberal website in terms of traffic and political influence, Daily Kos, has a rather curious and odd background for a leader of the Left—one that might explain his official policy of banning any Diarist who posts information or opinion dissenting from the 9/11 Commission's unraveling myth about the attacks.It doesn't make sense to me that Markos Moulitsas became a "progressive", "leftist". gatecrasher" while he was training at the Central Intelligence Agency, and after a lifetime of commitment to Republican causes. In fact it seems more likely to me that perfect cuts of filet mignon would come out of the grinders at a sausage factory.
( . . . )
In a speech to the Commonwealth Club in 2006, Kos admitted to interviewing with the CIA for a 6-month period after a time of "underemployment." His statements there betray either a stunning ignorance, or sneaking sympathy with the CIA's long history of democratic subversion and support of rightist dictatorships abroad, including the one that sponsored death squads in his former homeland . . .
( . . . )
The CIA has also been accused of providing seed money for both Facebook, and Google, according to former CIA clandestine officer Robert David Steele. As one critic has noted: "The CIA does not merely look into social media—they appear to own it."
If Moulitsas is a digital-age Mockingbird (the CIA's Cold War program of infiltrating and co-opting the American media; ), perhaps he is exercising a role similar to that of Rahm Emmanuel, who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 elections, steered party funds to pro-war Democrats while starving anti-war candidates. If that is the agenda of Daily Kos—to maintain the Democratic party's inertia as co-dependent enablers of the military-industrial complex and it's boondoggle War on Terror—it seems to be succeeding wildly. Suppressing any alternative narrative of 9/11, the foundational keystone of this war, would be a crucial element of such a strategy. "donnybrook"
Since the official story being offered entirely by Markos C. A. Moulitsas Zúniga himself, and defended by his minions without any actual facts to support his story, and not ever investigated by the mainstream media that must by now know of all of the holes in this yarn, I have to conclude that a conspiracy theory is necessary to explain that which otherwise makes no sense. And the conspiracy theory of donnybrook brings some of the critical known facts together and winds them into a credible hypothesis:
1). In the aftermath of 9-11, and in run-up to the Iraq War, the Government was desperate to prevent the Internet from becoming a source of alternative information to that being offered by the pro-war media.
2). The CIA and FBI have a history of infiltrating groups that seem to threaten and challenge the status quo, in such clandestine efforts such as Co-Intel-Pro, Mockingbird.
3). Correctly perceiving that the Left might try to use the Internet as a much more effective way of organizing Leftist opposition compared to what was available before, the CIA decided to infiltrate the Internet and set groundrules for discussion that would effectively prevent discussion from moving beyond what is available in mainstream media news outlets. That is, the CIA decided to neuter the discussion before it could get out of bounds.
4). Initially, the plan was to completely isolate the "progressive" whitosphere from Black participation, by simply banning Black users who had a more critical view of war, the Government and cover activity than white "progressives" typically do. However, as it became apparent that Blacks would not stand for being excluded, the gatekeepers decided to admit Blacks who would follow the groundrules already set for whites, including such blogs as Jack and Jill Politics, Steve Gilliard and Shanikka at DailyKos and MyLeft Wing (see comments).