In an online context, "conspiracy lust" is a lot like blood lust. [View all]

[Tommy_Carcetti]

I think there is an inate desire amongst many people--particularly in this 21st Century on an online setting--to either think there has to be more to a story than what there already is, or want to see a story become more than there actually is. And when it comes to the sanctuary of the keyboard, there's no limit.

People blood lust--unconsciously, even--when they want to see death, destruction and chaos abound in a situation to which they are not intimately connected. Because, face it, death, destruction and chaos are exciting from afar. It's why we have action stories and disaster movies. It makes intriguing television and fascinating news following. And when you don't have to experience it first hand, especially in our online society today, the sky's the limit for what you think should happen in a potential powder keg of a situation.

Likewise, I believe people also engage in "conspiracy lust." In main part because I believe people get bored of official stories. They get bored with the idea of what you see is what you get, and they wish that they were the secret gatekeepers of the knowledge of what really happened. And as is the case with blood lust, most of this conspiracy lust happens from afar, without an actual intimate connection to the events around the conspiracy lusters. Instead of that organic, real life tie to the situation, artificial ties are created by various people claiming to be authorities on the subject, so firsthand knowledge then becomes second hand knowledge, third hand knowledge, etc. And chances are, the more far fetched a conspiracy theory sounds, the more dubious and removed the authority actually is.

To be fair to all conspiracy theories, I will say they all begin with a core kernel of truth. For example, I am convinced that as it relates to the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration was--for whatever reason--not forthcoming as to all intelligence it had firsthand in the leadup to the attacks. And I also believe there were some in the Bush administration who really did see a silver lining in the attacks to further their own agenda or policy. The problem becomes, however, that from these kernels of truth, conspiracy lusters take huge logical leaps in creating an actual theory that ultimately disservice the legitimate underlying questions. So in their minds, those rational questions about September 11th suddenly becomes proof positive that a missile hit the Pentagon or that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition, or some other inane claptrap of the sort. This type of springboarding into the rhetorical abyss cannot be healthy behavior.

And the biggest problem for conspiracy lusters is the uninhibited willingness to dumpster dive into a pile of bullshit authorities in the vain effort to prove that their theory is in fact the true story of events. So when you feel perfectly willing to quote Paul Craig Roberts on a story when you know on any other subject you wouldn't be touching him with a 10 foot pole, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and decide whether it is worth to continue pushing your theory.

Why am I bringing this up now? Given the events over the past couple of weeks in Ukraine, it appears to become quite popular here to claim that what happened in Ukraine was a CIA sponsored coup, or that the country now lies in the grips of neo-Nazi/ultranationalist control. Many posts of that sort have been posted here, and even more have felt it okay to click the Rec button on such posts. And like all good conspiracy theories, there are underlying truths, truths that may indeed be inconvenient to many, even myself. Yes, the United States in the past has engaged in covert attempts to foment regime change in places like Iran or Chile and the like. Yes, included in the vast protest movement were some ultranationalists and even some neo-Nazis. And yes, as is common in any type of parliamentary legislative system, some legislators in far-right parties did receive cabinet posts in the interim (note: interim) government. But beyond what we do know, I've seen DUers climb all over themselves to insist these isolated facts are proof-positive of a much larger scheme, and they are mortgaging their credibility in the process. And in doing so from the comforts of their keyboards, they are doing a huge disservice to the people on the ground who have seen the truth with their very own eyes.