I am having trouble keeping up with conspiracy theories about CPAC.
First there was the “boycott” of CPAC by angry WorldnetDailyers and FamilyResearchCouncilors who complained that CPAC had been taken over by homos.
And today I read that CPAC has been secretly taken over by radical Islamists.
Excuse me, but isn’t there a rather major contradiction here?
I mean, if both claims are true and CPAC has been simultaneously taken over by homos on the one hand and Islamists on the other, then it is truly on a collision course with itself.
If that’s the case, the only way to resolve this might be for CPAC to issue a demand that it be stoned to death.
Oh, now I get it!
Stoned!
Finally, the subtext of Pat Robertson’s puzzling new stance on marijuana is revealed.
Glad that puzzle is solved.
Comments
5 responses to “Smoking out contradictory conspiracy theories”
Conpiracy theories are 100% about the mental conditions of the believers and not about the details they talk about. Conspiracy thinking shares some feathres with OCD, in that the OCD personality could compulsively wash, tap, check locks, etc. The target behavior/theory is as often a coincidence more than anything else. Discussing the logic and details with conspiracy people is no more useful than telling an anorexic about the health consequences of starvation. That technique would convince a normal person but it won’t penetrate the distorted reality wall in the brain.
I don’t read WND or the CFC website. I’ve clicked through accidently a few times, which just renewed my Determination To Ignore. It’s kind of like reading the Democratic Underground (also on my DTI). Nutcases. Serious nutcases.
I have this horrible idea that they might be infectious. Yuck.
Or you could read Scott’s rather less emotional, and rather more accurate analysis of the situation. Which I totally agree with, having once attempted to explain to a bulemic why his (yes, it was a male) methods were, shall we say, counterproductive.
Meh — it’s a tempest in a teapot, as far as I’m concerned.
There is one issue, though, that nags at me.
Grover Norquist (CEO of Americans for Tax Reform) married a Muslim woman of Palestinian descent. Last I heard, that was verboten — Muslim women can only marry Muslim men, on pain of death for both (if Sharia law is applied). [Muslim men can marry whoever they want, BTW.]
So, did Grover convert/revert? Norquist can argue that that’s a “personal matter”, but to the extent that Islam is also a political project, then it is relevant to his political activities.
RE: Contradiction between “Homos” and “radical Islamists”.
Google “Man love thursday”.
Note that I am NOT commenting on CPAC, conspiracies etc., as I am in different desert on a different continent, and both my time and internet bandwidth are constricted. Meaning I have no idea.