Pilate's question

A few posts down, I jokingly mentioned a desire to give myself a Wikipedia entry filled with absurd misinformation. (Perhaps I should claim to have invented Post-It notes? Nah. That's been done.)

Some jokes turn serious. All sorts of deeply epistemological questions are now buzzing through my cranium.

For example, this excellent article by dakinikat debunks a popular right-wing canard spread by none other than Newt Gingrich. According to the Newtster, an Obama judicial nominee named David Hamilton ruled that "the words Jesus Christ in a prayer is a sign of inappropriate behavior, but saying Allah would be OK." Of course, Hamilton made no such ruling. Gingrich's claim was absurd on its face.

In the comments appended to dakinkat's post, myiq references a recent piece of mine, which debunks a quote falsely attributed to Jeb Bush. For decades, False Quotation Syndrome remained (for the most part) a right-wing phenomenon -- but during the past two or three years, the disease has metastasized across the political spectrum.

This story in Flopping Aces illustrates the ease with which false information can penetrate the mainstream media. In this instance, responsible journals published bogus data concerning famed screen composer Maurice Jarre, best known for his Lawrence of Arabia score. Jarre died not long ago. As an experiment in manipulation, a college student concocted an utterly false (but plausible) Maurice Jarre "quote," which was inserted into the composer's Wikipedia page. The student writes:

While I expected online blogs and maybe some smaller papers to use the quote, I did not think it would have a major impact. I was wrong. Quality newspapers in England, India, America and as far away as Australia had my words in their reports of Jarre’s death.

Actually, there is some question as to just how many "quality publications" fell for the hoax, but this one sure did.

I came across another example. Earlier today, I had occasion to look up the Wikipedia entry for political broadcaster Dave Emory, widely thought to have been the partial inspiration for Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory. Fifteen years ago, Emory's assertions were often considered off the wall and "out there," although by modern standards -- that is to say, by internet standards -- he's downright mundane. We live in strange times.

(Back in the day, Emory's riffs inspired many conspiracy-oriented Hollywood plotlines. He was the screenwriter's secret.)

I've linked to Emory's site for years, although I'm not entirely sure why. Mutual acquaintances have told me a lot about his infuriating behind-the-scenes antics. I certainly do not agree with many of his stances, especially vis-a-vis the Middle East.

For the moment, let's put all that to one side. Let's look at the Wiki entry:

However he uses this to coverup well known facts of 9/11, as when he says controlled demolitions of WTC 1,2 and 7 are lies of underground Reich operatives. He also excuses and diminishes the Zionist genocide of Palestinians, and directs attention from the many Zionist criminal elites, towards only the German and World War 2 Nazi criminal elite networks

This is nonsense.

The inane assertion that "controlled demolitions" should be considered "well known facts of 9/11" tells us all we really need to know: The C/D wackos are at it again. Jesus Christ, these fuckers just do not stop. That's why so many talk radio programs refuse to let 'em on the air: You cannot reason with them, any more than you could talk the Terminator out of going after Sarah Conner. (I'm sure that Emory would agree with my view that the wackos are wackos, not "operatives.")

Emory is indeed pro-Israel. As you know, I have embraced a one-state solution, which would end the inherently racist concept of Israel as a "Jewish state." Our disagreement is thus profound and probably beyond reconciliation. Nevertheless, I recognize that his stance is more nuanced than the Wikipedia precis would lead you to believe.

Does it really matter if fanatics skulk their way into the less-traveled byways of Wikipedia and write absurd graffiti on the walls? Yes. Yes it does. Eventually, fanatics can succeed in rewriting history.

Not long ago, I received a "press release" from a crank named Mark Dice, who hopes to use the upcoming film version of Angels and Demons as a tool to flog his own book about the Illuminati. Dice claims to know all about the fabled Bavarian secret society which, in his view, still exists and still controls world events. Many writers (including Vernon Stauffer, Michael Barkun and George Johnson) have debunked the Illuminati mythos. But Dice remains persuaded:

“If you read the original writings of Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, it becomes undeniable that their plans have been very successful and the organization continues to thrive...”

Feeling puckish, I wrote back:

Ah. And just WHICH original writings of Weishaupt have you read?

I ask because I've tried to track them down. There's a copy of his Apologie (signed!) in the Library of Congress, and one other in a private library in Los Angeles. The book is in German and does not, I think, pose much of a threat to the Republic.

The Weishaupt excerpts I've read in Robison (I'm sure you know the book) strike me as innocuous. Certainly they do not prove that the order survived, or that it ever held much power.

If you are going to use words like "when you read their own writings," you should demonstrate that you have, in fact, read their writings. The ACTUAL writings, not the words and thoughts ascribed to Weishaupt by latter-day cranks like Nesta Webster, William Guy Carr and G.L.K. Smith.

You do know the difference between second-hand sources and first-hand sources, don't you? Where did you find Weishaput's writings? Do you understand German?

At this point, you may be asking: "Yeah, but so what? So this Dice guy is a toon. So he doesn't know how to do basic research. Big deal. The toons will be with us always."

Alas, a lot of people don't know the difference between a toon and a truthteller.

A 2006 poll found that 36% of the American public believe (or believed at that time) in the claims made by the 9/11 conspiracists. The poll does not break down how many within that 36% accepted the bombs-in-the-buildings scenario, but I imagine that the percentage must have been quite high, since the C/D theory has received non-stop publicity.

Is the number still 36%, or has the percentage lowered during the past three years? I suspect that many C/D-ers have injured their own cause with their displays of obnoxious zealotry.

Even so, my point remains: Guys like Dice do have an impact.

Consider the number of Americans who believed that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks. On September 13, 2001, a CBS poll found that only three percent of the American population ascribed the event to Saddam. Less than three years later, a majority had come to accept that lie. In June of 2007 -- well after most of the citizenry had turned against the Iraq war -- 41 percent still accepted it!

We all have heard the many lies spread about Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign. Palin's political philosophy does not resemble mine -- but that disagreement doesn't mean that I can tolerate the vicious and disgusting falsehoods which the progs told about the Alaskan governor and her daughters. Many lefties cannot understand my attitude. To them, politics is always a game of Shirts versus Skins (if I may borrow Bob Somerby's terminology), and if you are on the Shirts team, then you must condone the use of any tactic, however fair or foul, against the Skins.

FOX versus MSNBC. O'Reilly versus Olbermann. That lie versus this lie.

Obama still has hyper-zealous admirers. I turned against Obama when I understood that he had created a movement instead of a campaign. All political movements are bowel movements. Never follow leaders; never trust a movement. (Except for the movements written by Mahler, Bruckner and Beethoven.)

What will happen if -- when -- Obama fails to arrest our economic disaster? His followers -- many of them young, naive and ill-educated -- will go casting around for a new weltanschauung, or rather, a new bucket of fibs. At that moment, a whole bunch of guys like Mark Dice will seize their opportunity.

Politics is no longer a matter of Lying vs. Truth but Which Lie Do You Like? Can we even have a political discussion when reality itself has turned into Silly Putty?