Top 10 Conspiracy Theories
Published on August 21, 2007 - 159 Comments
Everyone enjoys hearing about a good conspiracy theory and many people enjoy coming up with new ones. You can spend an incredible amount of time reading about theories and wondering if there is any truth to them. This list is the top 10 conspiracy theories. If you feel that I have left off your favourite, or have proof that any of these are not just theory but fact, post a comment, just remember: don’t be cruel!
1. 9/11 was Planned by the US Government [Wikpedia]
Many conspiracy theories have been presented concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, many of them claiming that President George W. Bush and/or individuals in his administration knew about the attacks beforehand and purposefully allowed them to occur because the attacks would generate public support for militarization, expansion of the police state, and other intrusive foreign and domestic policies by which they would benefit.
Proponents point to the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank that argues for increased American global leadership, whose former members include ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and several other key Bush administration figures. An 1990 report from the group stated that “some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” would be needed to budge public opinion in their favor.
2. UFO Recovered at Roswell [Wikpedia]
The Roswell UFO Incident involved the recovery of materials near Roswell, New Mexico, USA, in July 1947, which have since become the subject of intense speculation, rumor, questioning and research. There are widely divergent views on what actually happened, and passionate debate about what evidence can be believed. The United States military maintains that what was recovered was a top-secret research balloon that had crashed.
By the early 1990s, UFO researchers such as Friedman, William Moore, Karl Pflock, and the team of Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt had interviewed several hundred people [11] who had, or claimed to have had, a connection with the events at Roswell in 1947. Additionally, hundreds of documents were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests, as were some apparently leaked by insiders, such as the disputed “Majestic 12″ documents. Their conclusions were that at least one alien craft had crashed in the Roswell vicinity, that aliens, some possibly still alive, were recovered, and that a massive cover-up of any knowledge of the incident was put in place.
3. John F. Kennedy’s Assasination [Wikpedia]
The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the United States, took place on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, USA at 12:30 p.m. CST (18:30 UTC). Kennedy was fatally wounded by gunshots while riding with his wife Jacqueline in a presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza. The official investigation by the Warren Commission was conducted over a ten-month period, and its report was published in September 1964. The Commission concluded that the assassination was carried out solely by Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza.
A number of conspiracy theories exist with regard to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Such theories began to be generated soon after his death, and continue to be proposed today. Many of these theories propose a criminal conspiracy involving parties such as the Federal Reserve, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the KGB, the Mafia, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director J. Edgar Hoover, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Fidel Castro, George H. W. Bush, Cuban exile groups opposed to the Castro government and the military and/or government interests of the United States.
4. Global Warming is a Fraud [Wikpedia]
The suggestion of a conspiracy to promote the theory of global warming was put forward in a 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel Four in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series, which asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding.
William Gray, phD (a pioneer in the science of hurricane forecasting) has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to ‘organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!’ In this article, Gray also cites the ascendancy of Al Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his problems with federal funding. According to him, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stopped giving him research grants, and so did NASA.
5. Princess Diana was Murdered by the Royal Family [Wikpedia]
In 1997, Princess Diana (Princess of Wales) and Dodi Fayed (son of Mohamed Fayed, owner of the Ritz Hotel and Harrods) were killed in a car accident while trying to get away from press photographers in Paris. The scandal surrounding their relationship (Dodi was Muslim whilst Diana was the mother of the future head of the Church of England) has led many people to speculate that they were actually killed in order to prevent further scandal to the throne of England.
Polls suggest that around a quarter of the UK public, and a majority of people in some Arab countries, believe that there was a plot to murder Diana, Princess of Wales. Motivations which have been advanced for such a conspiracy include suggestions that Diana intended to marry Dodi Fayed, that she intended to convert to Islam, that she was pregnant, and that she was to visit the holy land. Organizations which conspiracy theorists suggest are responsible for her death have included French Intelligence, the British Royal Family, the press, the British Intelligence services MI5 or MI6, the CIA, Mossad, the Freemasons, or the IRA.
6. Jewish World Domination [Wikpedia]
This theory, in recent history, extends mainly from the booklet The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which are widely considered to be the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature. The Protocols are considered by some to be an anti-Jewish literary forgery that purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination. Numerous independent investigations have repeatedly proven it to be a plagiarism and a hoax, yet numerous independent investigations have shown it to be a factual document.
The text was popularized by those opposed to Russian revolutionary movement, and was disseminated further after the revolution of 1905, becoming known worldwide after the 1917 October Revolution. It was widely circulated in the West in 1920 and thereafter. The Great Depression and the rise of Nazism were important developments in the history of the Protocols.
7. Apollo Moon Landing Hoax [Wikpedia]
Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced alternate historical narratives which tend, to varying degrees, to state that the Apollo Astronauts did not land on the moon, and that NASA created and continues to perpetuate this hoax.
Moon hoax proponents devote a substantial portion of their efforts to examining NASA photos. They point to various issues with photographs and films purportedly taken on the Moon. Experts in photography (even those unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counterintuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio imagery. Hoax proponents also state that whistleblowers may have deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA.
8. Pearl Harbor Was Allowed to Happen [Wikpedia]
This theory states that President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.
Theorists believe that the US was warned by, at least, the governments of Britain, Netherlands, Australia, Peru, Korea and the Soviet Union that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. All important Japanese codes were broken. FDR and Marshall and others knew the attack was coming, allowed it and covered up their knowledge.
9. The Third Secret of Fatima [Wikpedia]
The Three Secrets of Fatima are said to be three prophecies that were given by an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to three young Portuguese shepherds, Lucia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto. From May to October, 1917, the three children claimed to have witnessed this Marian apparition, which is today popularly described as Our Lady of Fatima. On July 13 the Virgin Mary is said to have entrusted the three secrets - in the form of prophecies - to the young visionaries. Two of the secrets were revealed in 1941 in a document written by Lucia to assist with the canonization of her cousins, while the third was to remain secret, although the bishop of Leiria commanded Lucia to put it in writing and to present it to the Pope.
A Catholic priest who has apparently seen the original text of the “third secret” of Fatima disputes the official interpretation of the secret released by the Vatican. Furthermore, he has asked key people in the Vatican about the text and has gotten no response. While the Priest’s comments are somewhat radical, they are not without merit, as he has seen the secret with his own eyes. Moreover, while the first 2 secrets are fairly obvious and clear, leading some to wonder why the third one is required to be examined by a team of experts because of its complexity.
10. The Philadelphia Experiment [Wikpedia]
The Philadelphia Experiment was an alleged naval military experiment at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sometime around the date of October 28, 1943, in which the U.S. destroyer escort USS Eldridge was to be rendered invisible to human observers for a brief period of time. It is also referred to as Project Rainbow. The story is widely regarded as a hoax. The U.S. Navy has stated that the experiment never occurred, and furthermore, details of the story contradict stated facts about the Eldridge. It has nonetheless caused a significant ripple effect in many conspiracy theory circles, and elements of the Philadelphia Experiment are featured in many other government conspiracy theories.
According to some accounts, the experiment was conducted by a Dr. Franklin Reno (or Rinehart) as a military application of a Unified Field Theory. The theory, briefly, postulates the interrelated nature of the forces that comprise electromagnetic radiation and gravity. Through a special application of the theory, it was thought possible, with specialized equipment and sufficient energy, to bend light around an object in such a way as to render it essentially invisible to observers. The Navy considered this application of the theory to be of obvious military value (especially as the United States was engaged in World War II at the time) and both approved and sponsored the experiment. A navy destroyer escort, the USS Eldridge, was fitted with the required equipment at the naval yards in Philadelphia.
Note: There are so many conspiracy theories that this would be an unwieldy list if I included them all. Stay tuned for a second Conspiracy Theories list in the future.
Technorati Tags: conspiracy
Related ListsAnother 10 Conspiracy TheoriesTop 10 Famous Corpses 11 Alternative JFK Assassins Top 10 Secret Societies |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post











1. Andre du Plessis - August 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I might be ignorant on this issue but I find it hard to believe that a modern president will allow hundreds or thousands innocent people to be killed just to fulfill their ideals - like the Towers and Pearl Harbor.
2. dalandzadgad - August 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
^^ truth is stranger than fiction.
really good list. i think you hit all the major and interesting ones.
3. jfrater - August 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Andre: some conspiracy theories are so outlandish that it is hard to believe anyone even remotely considers them true - I think the Philadelphia Experiment falls into that category.
dalandzadgad: Thanks
I will do another one in the future because there are just so many out there!
4. Dan - August 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Princess Diana died in ‘97, not 2001. Just wanted to point that out. Nice list, though.
5. jfrater - August 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Thanks Dan - I have corrected that error.
6. mix2323 - August 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
i think UFOs are a product of are govt and area 51 is a place where they do illegal cloning and gene splicing why else would they keep it a secret and aliens are a cover up for what they are doing
7. Crimanon - August 21st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Thank you for not doing the whole “flouride in the tooth paste” bit. Makes my theories look normal. At the moment I’m too tried to try.
Mix: Area 51 has been out of service for about Five years. The word getting out and all. They moved their “Research” to other places. They don’t even stop you from walking around anymore.
8. mix2323 - August 21st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
yea thats what i heard kind of cool i would like to go check it out some time
9. Crimanon - August 21st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
The Lil Probe diner needs business. They could retire with what they made over the years, but they love the place too much. Personal, I’d like to go out on the sands. See the hangers. And take my bike down the runway, Hell buy it and turn it into a street racing haven. 5 miles of runway!!!!
10. mix2323 - August 21st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
you could make bank hold comps and races
11. Bret - August 21st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Global warming is a fraud. Whether or not it is a “conspiracy” remains a question.
12. Jane nolan - August 21st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
I’d like to see a follow up list: Racial Conspiracies. Did you know 1 in 3 black people believes that HIV was created by the US government? (this is consistent in multiple polls)
13. James - August 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 am
Kurt Cobains death not being a suicide.
14. Crimanon - August 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 am
James: That would hardly count as Significant enough to be on here. One man of music, With problems vs. World leaders, with Influence. What did Kurts death bring? A jump in revenue by the fans and a whole bunch of potheads going “Damn Dude.” Diana and Kennedy, had significant influence in world issues. Comparing Kurt to Lady Di or JFK, would be like comparing an organge to a Multi vitamin. Which one do you care about, the tasty one or the Important one. I’m not saying there wasn’t something wrong with the investigation, but in the Grand scheme of things, Who Cares?
15. Crimanon - August 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 am
And before you get all huffy about it. I’m a big fan of Kurt, and an strong supporter of marijuana legalization. I just have a better perspective than others of my age.
16. Fe - August 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 am
Bret, whether or not global warming is a fraud or a conspiracy, it is easy to see that humans are inflicting significant damage to our planet. If it takes a ‘fraud’ to make people wise up to the harm we are causing through pollution and overpopulation, then sign me up as a believer in global warming.
17. jfrater - August 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Thanks for the comments guys - I didn’t realise this would be a controversial topic
I definitely plan to do another conspiracy list because there are so many of them.
18. James - August 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Sorry Crimanon i didnt mean anything bad by it i just thought it was something kind of interesting.
19. Crimanon - August 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
James: It’s nothing you did wrong exactly, it’s a perspective thing. One of the things I do in my free time is Rant and yell about things. One of my favorite sayings that sums up how I feel about the world, “Kids these days.”
Thats really bad concidering my age. I’m younger that you think and older than I look. I’m a little more Intense when it comes to the spiraling intellegence that is America. Hell in a hand basket and all that. It’s nothing directed At you, just more of my personal commentary on life.
20. James - August 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
coolcool
21. shoes - August 24th, 2007 at 9:02 am
i like to put all conspiracies on my weird shit-o-meter. all of these are things that , if you found out they were true, wouldnt completely blow your mind.
as for kurt cobain…all you need to do is listen to courtney love for a while and you can understand why he killed himself
22. jfrater - August 24th, 2007 at 11:46 am
You know - I just realised, number 9 would be perfect for the Top 10 Incorrupt Corpses - I forgot all about her when I wrote the list.
23. Carl - August 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’d say that Global warming is past the conspiracy theory stage. Anybody who is competent enough to think for themselves and do a little research of their own can figure out that there is no correlation between human produced CO2 and climate. The evidence is simply in contradiction to this oft repeated lie. Global warming is simply a political devise used to manipulate and control the population. (well, actually that last sentence was a conspiracy theory. lol)
24. Carl - August 24th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Fe, The Lie that CO2 is harmful and it’s recent classification as a pollutant is downright scary. Do you realize that you exhale CO2. The headlines of tomorrow might read “Reduce Human Emissions!!!”
Think about the implications of this position before you support it.
Anyhow, Reducing CO2 could be very counterproductive environmentally. If you recall your elementary level biology you might remember that CO2 is the equivalent to oxygen for plants. Increases in CO2 Increases the growth rate of plant life. Commercial greenhouse operations pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase crop yield!
Tell me, If CO2 does not cause “harmful global warming” (it does not) then why would we want to reduce it?
25. Stefan d - August 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Global Warming is not real. i live in fucking alaska i know my fucking shit, its just a bunch of bull shit, the media likes scaring people so they have something to write about, there really isnt enough evidence of human caused warming or any warming at all, just 1 or 2 degree’s since 1900 which can be attributed to natural climate cycles or The Urban Island Heating Effect, which states that cities are warmer because of the tons of concrete and cars and just stuff in general, so weather stations in cities are just inaccurate because of this.
26. Ryan - August 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
It’s a good list, but I think given the ongoing scandals regarding the entrance into Afghanistan and Iraq, you should let the 9/11 one play out till the end of Bush’s term before retiring it to the land of conspiracy theories.
27. fermie - August 24th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Ahahahahah
28. jfrater - August 24th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Great comments everyone - thanks
29. Chris - August 25th, 2007 at 12:20 am
and we all know Bush just hates us and America and wants to kill Americans and make himself look good. NOT, wow i’m glad you elected a leader and blame him for every single one of the world’s faults. why don’t we just put Hillary Clinton in the White House so she can magically “fix” all of our problems. yep that would fix it you assholes. pull your head out of your asses and live in reality
30. Crimanon - August 25th, 2007 at 1:14 am
To think that Any political leader is doing anything Entirely for the good for their country is Just Plain Blind. Political motivations are just a fancy way of saying “you’ll do it my way.” The Illuminati are just as bad as Scientologists. New World Order has to start with chaos. And what better way to get it, then to attack the strongest city/nation in the world. Stop Watching so much Damned Fox News and read between the lines.
Prepair for the worst, Hope for the best.
31. Cameron - August 25th, 2007 at 6:06 am
It still amazes me that people make a big deal about the “secrets” at Area 51. Do you really think that if the government wanted to keep a military base secret, they wouldn’t be able? There are probably a lot of US military bases, scattered all over the world, that we will never know about. And, everyone still thinks they’d be stupid enough to hide things at Area 51.
32. Dr. Stubing - August 26th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Dear Dr. Stefan d:
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I shall put to rest all further debate on Global Warming because you live in Alaska and “you know your shit”. I await your dissertation on microbiology next year.
33. soonerproud - September 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Most scientist do believe Global Warming is real. The split comes on the issue of is it a man made phenomenon or is it a natural process. I personally believe it is a natural process.
The Little Ice Age ended in the 1850’s. This current warming trend is a continuation of that natural process. The Middle Ages were relatively warmer than it is today. The climate has had these cycles for billions of years before a human being was ever on the face of the Earth.
Human caused Global Warming is a political issue and not entirely based on scientific evidence. When one looks at the facts objectively it becomes apparent that scientist aren’t completely sure what the causes of the current warming trend are. However the evidence strongly suggest that increased solar activity may be behind the current cycle. Melting polar ice caps on Mars lends a lot of credibility to this theory.
However, it is still not a good thing to be pumping so many pollutants into the air. Regardless if Global Warming is natural or man made we need to find cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy than carbon based fuels. The other effects of the pollutants we release in the air are not healthy for both the plants and the animals of the Earth. Sustainable sources of energy would also have the side effect of reducing nations dependence on foreign energy sources. This will mean less conflicts between nations and possibly less wars.
34. jfrater - September 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
soonerproud: that is very nicely put - thank you for that comment.
35. Özhan - September 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
#12. Jane nolan said:
Did you know 1 in 3 black people believes that HIV was created by the US government?
–
I am no black, but I also believe the HIV was created by humans. And the lab rats they use for creation, were African people.
36. jfrater - September 9th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Özhan - just out of interest may I ask what you base your belief in? This is actually a theory I have not heard before and it is interesting that so many people obviously hold to it.
37. K. Donovan - September 10th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Hey, doofus:
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: “Протоколы сионских мудрецов”, or “Сионские протоколы”, see also other titles) is an antisemitic text that purports to describe a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. It is one of the most well known and discussed examples of literary forgery.
From the very Wikipedia entry you cite. There’s no legitimate debate. The Protocols are a fake.
38. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
K. Donovan: Nice language, thanks. If you read the item description you will see that I have included both sides of the story. The fact remains, it is a conspiracy theory as many people do believe it to be real despite its having been proven fake. It is no different from the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith - we know it is fake but all the Mormons believe it is not.
39. Özhan - September 13th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Another conspiracy theory:
USA supports PKK (an organization accepted as terrorist world wide that killed more than 30k people) Most of Turks believe it, including me.
40. Anna - September 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Fucking Alaskans know their fucking shit!
Hysterical. I love it!
41. jay - September 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Crimanon: Kurt Cobain was a generation defining musician and extremely important to the world of music as a whole. Lady Di was not a world leader as you state - she did a lot of charity work, granted, but that’s it. By the time of her death she was no longer part of the Royal family and was not using her title. Mother Teresa died the same week but got next to no coverage. The media loved Diana, why I have no idea, but that is the only reason why these theries came about. Other than taking time out from her schedule of 5 star hotels and Dodi’s yaght to highlight a few charities, she offered absolutely nothing to the world of any import. Cobain was the centre of a movement, Diana was the centre of a scandal. The whole Diana thing is beyond me.
The real sad story is Charles and Camilla - childhood sweethearts denied their love by the Royal family because it didn’t suit them. And now they are finally together she is public enemy number 1. Figure that one out. Anyway, that really has nothing to do with anything, sorry about that. At least I’ve got it off my chest now…
42. ben - September 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
this is a cool list, not sure how i missed it in august. Im surprised no one has brought up the “moon landings are fake” idea, but then maybe that dumb hysteria has passed
43. Crimanon - September 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Here we go again…
Jay: Nirvana was one of three to start the Grunge legacy. Kurt didn’t do it himself and if it wasn’t for Pearl Jam getting recognized First it would never have exsisted. Lady Di, RIP, Worked with more charities than I can remeber. To say She Wasn’t a world leader is naive’. Kurt married Courtney and did heroin til he died. Di married royalty and helped the world. Lets let the Inquest handle the answer to this.
44. jay - October 1st, 2007 at 1:42 am
I have close ties to a couple of the charities she worked with and all she did was basically lend her name to them as an endorsement so as to boost donations - which is of course a great thing. But she herself often did no more than the charity and NGO workers themselves. She was just more high profile so received much more publicity as a result. The real heroes were and still are unsung(eg Mother Teresa). Why Diana has the status of a martyr is beyond me; it is not right and undermines the hard work of the real charity workers on the ground.
A world leader is someone who makes daily decisions that decides the fate of many - Diana endorsed a few charities who in turn tried to help people… She was definitely not a world leader. I’m afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one..
As for Cobain, RIP, I never said he started Grunge, I said he was at the centre of it. Pearl Jam obviously are great, but Cobain without doubt “touched” a lot more listeners than Pearl Jam did. The reason he was so popular was because he had so much passion - he may not have got the ball rolling, but no one can deny he is the icon of that genre.
45. Punjar - October 1st, 2007 at 10:17 am
I saw a show, I think it was on either the Discovery Channel or History Channel, that looked at all the different theories the moon landing people have come up with for why it was a hoax, and pretty much blew them all out of the water. This included taking pictures in the desert with the same camera and lighting and seeing that the stars didn’t appear in the photograph, proving that it was possible to operate the camera with a space suit on, and slowing down a tape of someone walking in a spacesuit on earth and showing that, no, it didn’t look just like the moonwalk video. It basically went on like this for an hour. The whole flag blowing in the wind thing, which seems to be a popular point among theorists, was disproven, because you only see the flag move as it’s being put up, meaning it was just moving because of vibrations. My favorite part was someone arguing that humans couldn’t pass through the Van Allen belt, even though Dr. Van Allen said that they could.
46. jfrater - October 1st, 2007 at 10:30 am
Punjar: thanks for that info - very informative.
47. jay - October 1st, 2007 at 10:59 am
Why does nobody bite anymore?
48. jfrater - October 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am
jay: hehe if you included jews in the comment I am sure sakul would
49. soonerproud - October 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“Jay: Nirvana was one of three to start the Grunge legacy. Kurt didn’t do it himself and if it wasn’t for Pearl Jam getting recognized First it would never have exsisted.”
Actually, Alice In Chains was the first of that group to hit it big in 1990. The album was Facelift and the band toured with Van-Halen that year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Chains
Perl Jam hit it big in 1991 with the release of Ten on August 27, 1991. It was slow to sell until the second half of 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Jam
Soundgarden was the first band to sign on to a major label and had moderate success before any of these band released their first album. The Album was “Louder Than Love” and they toured with GnR in 1989. They also received a Grammy nomination for best Metal performance in 1990. The band only hit it big with their release of Badmotorfinger in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundgarden
Nirvana released Nevermind on September 24, 1991 around the same time that Perl Jam released Ten. By January 1992 it was number one on the Billboard charts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(band)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind
This means you are wrong and that Perl Jam is not responsible for Nirvana’s success. That credit goes to first Heart, for giving AIC exposure (The members of AIC were good friends with Ann and Nancy Wilson before they were famous.) and then Soundgarden and AIC and their early success. Pearl Jam rode on the coat tails of all four of these other bands.
50. jay - October 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 am
Soonerproud: Thanks for pointing that out, good info. However I never said that,it was Crimanon who said it - see above. Good try though.
All I said was Cobain was the nost recognised and affiliated with that movement.
Should take it up with Crimanon; my point was that Diana was a normal rich person who did a bit of charity, not some kind if saint…
51. Crimanon - October 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 am
Arn’t we off of the subject??? Diana, world leader or NO, had more influence than Cobain. It all comes down to Hero of Potheads vs. Hero of the Downtrodden. Who ever has the balls to route for the underdog has my vote. Now Can We Please Stop Talking About Kurt Ka-blam??? If you really want this debate to continue take it up with James.
52. jay - October 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 am
I guess people do bite after all.
53. freethinker - October 18th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Regarding Jewish world domination: Whether the Protocols are authentic or not, the plausibility of such a conspiracy is observable by simply correlating a few known and established FACTS about the Jews and their culture:
1. Jews form closed communities exclusive of outsiders. They routinely discourage marriages outside of their race.
2. Jews regard themselves as superior to other human cultures. One of their better-known words for non-Jews - “goyim” - means cattle or livestock.
3. Jews will pool their resources to buy out mutliple businesses in a region, allowing them to gain control of the economy in that region. This is why Hitler turned against them.
4. Jews are highly education-oriented and as such often demonstrate above-average intelligence. This intelligence allows them to evaluate their cultural environment, a vital survival trait in evading the numerous pogroms they have been subjected to.
5. Jews’ intelligence and understanding of human nature has made them masters of propaganda and social manipulation. This is why the Holocaust stands out in history despite the fact that there have been many far worse racial massacres. This is why they have their own special term of discrimination; “anti-Semitism” instead of the more general “racism” applied to discrimination against any other culture. This is why anybody who dares say the sort of things I’ve posted here is reviled and can even be jailed. Even though all I’ve done is point out demonstrable facts without advocating any course of action.
These are all facts that can be demonstrated and proven wherever a Jewish community exists. That these facts clearly indicate predisposition to dominate other cultures is evident on its face. Think about it.
54. jfrater - October 18th, 2007 at 10:16 am
freethinker: I agree that your points are probably true in general, but I do have some issues:
1. This is not a situation unique to Jews - traditionally Catholics recommend marriage with other Catholics - in fact, traditionally if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic (who absolutely must be baptised even if he isn’t a Catholic by practice) they must be married in a smaller side-chapel as it is not seen as ideal. Normally the non-Catholic parent is obliged to sign a document stating that they will raise their children as Catholics.
2. The Muslims are the same as this
3. Again, this is not particularly unique to Jews.
4. I think intelligence comes not from learning but your mind in general. You can read a lot of books and still be a moron.
5. Anti-semitism is not a reference for racism against Jews, it is a term that refers to racism against anyone of the peoples that speak a semitic language - Hebrew is one, but so is Arabic and Maltese.
So while what you are saying is correct in many ways, it is not unique to the Jews, it is a common trait of closed communities.
Oh - and I promise not to arrest you for posting on listverse
55. Ron - October 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
10 conspiracies??? I only see two!
The other eight are “real”!
56. Drogo - November 20th, 2007 at 2:28 am
I’ll bet you that on Nov.22,1963 Oswald was aiming at the guy on the grassy knoll.
57. Peter G - November 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
well at risk of sounding like a nut, the kind of people I used to laugh at… well ok, I still do… sometimes when looking at one of these theories, you cant help but think about who gained what out of what went down.
No lies that there is oil in the middle east. no lies that the states like their oil… you think that osama bin laden would not have expected a serious lashback and occupation by the states? I mean if you really hate the “freedom” other countries have… why not attack Canada? shit, lets fly some planes into Jamaica’s weed fields. If those guys aren’t free, then I dont know who would be.
anywho dumb stories aside, 9/11 has been the impetus behind the occupation of afghanistan, invasion of iraq who was obviously in league with al qaeda, and god knows what other oil bearing non conforming country.
that, and the terrorism insurance on the world trade centers, that was good thinking. Who gained from these attacks?
anyway, im sure you’ve heard the above bs from every conspiracy nut you’ve talked to, and I really cant blame anyone for wanting to think that the gov’t is acting in the interest of the people. I cant.
anyway, if you’ve made up your mind, fine, I understand completely.
if however, you are unsure, please do check out the movie on http://www.zeitgeist.com . be sceptical about it… check the sources, do your own search for fact and all that good stuff.
enjoy
58. shawn - December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
this is a great list jfrater. u real have ur eyes open . u would make a great reporter
59. JoshO - December 21st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Has anyone thought about Tupac and Biggie. There are theories that our government were behind their so called killings. If you think about it, the time of their deaths were in a time where riots were breaking out everywhere and constantly. during the time of tupac’s death, he was staging a huge riot, one of astronomical numbers, or so I have been told by others, and our government was fed up and didnt want to deal with an incident like that so they just took him out.
Think about this, what are the odds of someone or somebodies getting away with a shooting like that, especially in las vegas where there are many people on every corner at all hour of the night. And there were no witnesses. Now who are the only people who can get away with whatever they want and hide anything they want from the public’s eyes, our government.
Also take this into account. Government officials could have been pissed at him because of the fact that he got away with killing two cops. The cops tried to assault tupac with weopons they stole from the evidence room and they were intoxicated at the time and were the ones doing the provoking. Tupac shot both of them in self defence.
Just thought I would throw that out there. I would like to hear other’s opinions.
60. Amai - December 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 am
It’s a bit canadian but my fav is that the flu shot is behind the massive and inexplanable fan fanatism for the toronto maple leafs
61. Jay - December 30th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
After reading all these theories to be honest i dont not believe them. I say don’t under estimate what a human will do to get what they want. Also why isn’t the biggest conspiracy of them all isn’t there the illuminati so hard to want to believe but is more likely than any other.
62. Sheridan O’Connor - December 31st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Good job Freethinker! You have been doing your homework. Except that it isn’t the Jewish people who plot to take over the world. It’s the Zionists and there is a mighty difference.
Amsel Rothschild is reported to have said, “Give me control of the economics of a country; and I care not who makes her laws.” Today his descendents meet twice daily in London to dictate to the world what the world price of gold will be. They also dictate what the “Federal Reserve System” (nope, not owned by the American people) will do with America’s finances.
Most Jewish people are kind and decent, but like every other “race”, they have their own rotten apples. And they are very rotten indeed.
It never pays to bury your head in the sand. You need always to seek truth. It is the only way to keep your freedom.
Keep the faith Freethinker. You are not alone
63. luckyaz - January 10th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
what about the treaty made between the united states government and aliens from space in 1947? that gave the greys permission to abduct humans for medical purposes, and experiment with cattle, in return the united states government recieves advanced technology in so many years, cell phones, digital cam corders, smaller nuclear weapons, etc like that.
64. frankie boy - January 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
hey this b.s will help me finish my speech thx
65. Monkey Nuts - January 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Lol the Philadelphia experiment is too outlandish to be true? Hahahahaha yeah, and Kennedy was just shot by one crazy dude, the CIA had nothing to do with it. And when Dick Cheney personally told NORAD to stand down on 911 it was to protect us. And when the local air force base told local media they had found a flying saucer with alien bodies, it was just a funny joke, it was actually a weather ballon full of mannequins and monkeys, and all of the witnesses just made the exact same mistake of perception. And an entire fleet of japanese planes attacked our largest closest air base without us knowing, HA! I’m glad that you’ve got it all figured out, I mean it’s not like our government would lie to us or anything! Hahahahahaha everything is exactly as it seems.
66. Polly Odyssey - February 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You ought to have included Kurt Cobain.
67. Crimanon - February 8th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Polly: You should read the comments. You’ll find the Debate. And maybe you’ll come around. I’m not about to start that again.
68. beanshide - February 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I thought the third secret of Fátima was already known. And I’m portuguese, I guess I should know more about it with all the fuzz about Fátima that goes around here every year.
69. Csimmons - February 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
People who make these theories have no life.
70. twenty - February 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Nice list. Although I am heartly sick of people insisting that Diana was killed by the royal family. It was a car crash, plain and simple. I also agree with Andre that I doubt an American president would allow the Murder of thousands of Americans to back up their own political agenda! Also I once watched an interview with a formor Soviet spy who scoffed at the very idea that the moon landings were faked. He stated that the Soviets were watching every second of Nasa’s attempt to reach the moon, on the ground, in the air and on the moon. If there was even the slightest bit of evidence that it was fake, they would have found it and showed the world. The soviets were expert intelligence gathers and had the best spy masters in the world. And lets face it, with the steadfastness of journilists these days, its difficult for anyone to get away with anything.
71. JwJwBean - February 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
The latest JFK theory comes out today. It claims there is a writeen recording of Mrs. Kennedy plotting with Oswald to kill her husband.
72. SlickWilly - February 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
JwJwBean: I think you might be talking about the recently released document that was supposed a written transcript of a meeting between Oswald and Jack Ruby discussing the assassination about a month or so before the actual event. The FBI has already discredited the papers as authentic, citing papers that were retrieved along with it that states that the man to whom the papers belonged was in the middle of writing a movie about the assassination, and that the “transcript” is actually pages of the incomplete script.
73. SlickWilly - February 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
beanside: I believe the 3rd secret of Fatima was indeed revealed, and it pertained to the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in the late 70’s, early 80’s (I *think* this was when the attempt took place, but I could be off by a few years).
74. JwJwBean - February 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Thank you for clearing that up. I must have misheard the name and thought they said Jackie. I was listening fro mthe other room. See how easy it is for these rumors to get started.
75. JwJwBean - February 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Okay this one I have a news link so I hope I have it right. It is about Diana and the conspiracy to kill her.
http://www.9news.com/news/worl.....ryid=86590
76. Ken Murphy - February 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The theories are true!!! Now if you’ll excuse me, Elvis & I have a flying saucer to catch.
77. ajh - April 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 am
one of the other guys mentioned he didn’t think a president wouldn’t kill people just to fulfill his ideals. what this guy doesn’t realise is that george bush is a fucking dick head, ass hole and a monster in every way. he should be the one who is dead. so yes he wouldn’t care about any one else and would have killed thousands of people and would kill and will kill thousands more, just to get what he wants.
78. miriah - April 9th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Well arent you a bag of sunshine? He may not be smart or a good public speaker…but he sure in the hell would not let something like that happen. Just remember that when your Hiliary or Barak wins your freedoms will end.
79. lzu - April 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
i know i am late on this but reading through the comments from everybody about global warming and people getting so upset, global warming is a cycle that the earth goes through, and has always gone through, not everyone says it is caused by us, but people who care enough to learn about it want people to play a part in preventing it
80. mike - April 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Hi
I found the list quite interesting if some of them a bit obvious.
I was suprised by the comments though.
The list is there as far as I can see to inform people who are interested in the subject, so the person reading can come up with thier own opinions.
No-one can judge because i doubt many people actually know.
81. Spanner in the Works - May 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Maybe too late to matter, but here goes:
People not always using their brains above (or do they have some other organ in their heads?)
DIANA: No one could possibly have planned that chance crash into a support column in a tunnel at 70 mph in the middle of Paris. Besides, supposing she had survived as a living vegetable, a strong possibility. Great for the Royal family, eh? Fuggin’ Al Fayed should be kicked out of GB.
GLOBAL WARMING. There IS evidence to judge this. And yes, it’s real and industrial revolution-driven, believe me. Set graphs of the two together and you’ll see they make a perfect match. I’m a biologist and also know South America well, where glaciers are disappearing like licked ice lollies. Natural climate changes on this scale don’t occur over a couple of hundred years and accelerating exponentially with it. They take thousands or even tens of thousands, unless volcanoes or meteor strikes, etc. are causal agents. We know this from Antarctic ice-core sampling. Carbon dioxide is indeed out-breath and isn’t the cause per se, it’s just a case of far too much bad breath. Methane from the other orifice is actually even worse! So if you don’t want climate change to keep happening with really nasty consequences for one and all, inform yourself and get involved. Or make a personal contribution by holding your breath and not farting.
KENNEDY. Experts have suggested that the best sharpshooters in the world would have difficulty scoring two rapid direct lethal hits on a guy in a moving car at that range. Most assassination attempts fail miserably from a few feet away, which is hardly surprising when you think how wound up anyone about to top a world leader must be. This is one conspiracy theory that does feel potentially true to me.
JEWS. For FUCK’S SAKE leave these poor people alone, or go try out a gas chamber for yourself as an extreme adventure holiday, sickos. And no, I’m an Aryan, if it matters.
The rest of the theories have been well talked by others above, are silly, or I don’t know enough to comment on them. Good work though. Next ten please.
82. Struth - May 6th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Andre du Plessis… Yes you are ignorant !!!
83. Spanner in the works - May 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Without wishing to support the view that administrations are sweet and innocent, it seems to me the evidence in favour of an attack such as 9.11 or Pearl Harbour being ‘allowed’ to happen as a casus belli is pretty weak, certainly in those two cases.
For 9.11, only valiant action by passengers stopped one of the ‘flying bombs’ zapping the White House. No one could have planned or anticipated that self-sacrificing gesture. Also damage to the Pentagon could easily have been far more catastrophic.
As for Pearl Harbour. Why take it on the chin unprepared? The mere attack was sufficient provocation to hype up the American public to support war against the axis powers. If it was known beforehand, why not move the other major capital ships out to sea along with the carriers? And also do a lot more damage to the the attacking aircraft? Those actions would have blunted the attack and immeasurably strengthened the ability to respond effectively both defensively and offensively in the critical short term.
84. Jan - May 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am
As for the Philadelphia experiment.
It was to mask a ship from radar detection, not from being seen. The way you have it written gives the impression that you mean render the ship invisible to visual observation.
Here’s a little something to add to your comments about Bush and Roosevelt knowing about their perspective attacks before they happened:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html
85. Randall - May 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Jan:
The Philadelphia Experiment wasn’t real, sport. The entire thing was made up by a troubled attention-hog and trickster named Carl Allen, who duped a naive and all-too credulous UFO investigator into buying the whole thing lock, stock, and barrel. There was never a secret project code-named “Philadelphia*…. not even one for trying to mask ships from radar detection, rather than making them invisible. The closest REAL operations done to this were magnetic degaussing, which was done in an attempt to foil magnetic mines.
86. SlickWilly - May 9th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Randall: You’re quite wrong on this one. The Philadelphia was, in fact, a real experiment, with well-referenced evidence that is, to this day, disseminated and widely available from numerous documented sources, country-wide. It is a well-established fact that in the 1930’s (anecdotal evidence supports that as early as 1933), Philadelphia residents Harry and Pat Olivieri experimented with various ways of loading thinly sliced strips of steak and cheese into hoagie rolls in order to create the perfect, authentically American dish. Over the years, vegetables of several varieties were added and numerous methods of bun preparation were also experimented with. As it turns out, the experiment was a huge success and even now, you can find what has since come to be known as the “Philly Cheesesteak” in many different venues across the nation. Yes, the Philadelphia experiment was real: an experiment in deliciousness.
87. Jan - May 9th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Randall,
I think a saw something on the History Channel telling about what you just said. I’m not saying it was real, I was just clarifying an item on that particular topic.
88. Randall - May 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Slick:
mmmmmmmm…. Philly cheesesteak…. yummmmmmmyyyyyyy (drools, falls into stupor).
89. Spanner in the works - May 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
O.K. The Philadelphia Food Project Conspiracy is something else again, and highly successful too. I’ve often been a victim of it and so, I’m sure, have most others. What happens is you buy a burger, a sandwich, a pasty, a cake or something else with the ends folded over or closed so you can’t see the filling. And when you bite into it you can’t taste the filling either, because if it hasn’t been made to vanish entirely, it has been shrunk so effectively as to be impossible to detect even by radar. The origins of this conspiracy are lost in history, and it has probably been made to serve many purposes. My theory for its use nowadays is so governments can claim credit for having maintained world food reserves at their present level. Any other ideas?
90. Spanner in the works - May 9th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Here are a couple of off-the-wall thoughts on conspiracies. Has anyone thought that those accused of creating them might sometimes actually benefit from people believing them possible? Take 9.11 and Pearl Harbour again. At their face value those events showed that the security and national defence systems failed totally and frighteningly. That’s pretty demoralising stuff for a nation, and fair encouragement for aggressors. But if there’s even a hint that the attacks might have been allowed to happen, it suggests the authorities were at least in control, which perhaps at the end of the day is more reassuring and might even give an enemy second thoughts. Another prime example of this kind of situation was Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in our time’ flight to meet Hitler. Was Chamberlain really such a naïve prat as to believe nice Uncle Adolf? Or did he realise war was inevitable and sacrificed his reputation to buy another year, just enough time to build the Spitfires and Hurricanes that eventually saved Britain by a whisker? Chamberlain had to convince the nazis he was an absolute dipstick or the bluff wouldn’t have worked. Or was it a bluff? Historians still argue the point and Chamberlain took the answer to his grave.
Then how about testing conspiracy theories against Occam’s Razor or lex parsimoniae, as it’s otherwise called? (Look up Occam’s Razor or Ockham’s Razor in Wikipedia or something.) This is widely used in modern scientific and other practice when there are conflicting possible answers to a theory or hypothesis. It says - more or less - that in the absence of solid evidence to tip the balance, 99 times out of a hundred the simplest answer proves to be the correct one. Therefore, if you don’t know, you work out and accept the simplest answer until (if ever) it is definitely proved wrong. So, for example, what is more simple, that Diana and Dodi crashed into a pillar because their driver was slightly pissed and they told him to go like the clappers to get away from the papperazzi? Or that somehow or other one or more assassins planned beforehand to spike his drink, knew that the car could be forced to travel too fast for him to control, and that he would not only lose it precisely at the right spot to crash fatally into the pillar, but that the people they wanted dead would definitely die and not inconveniently survive the crash? Ask Occam’s Razor. Try other conspiracy theories on it too. It gives a pretty idea of how likely they are. Some actually come out as fairly plausible.
91. Crimanon - May 10th, 2008 at 12:02 am
So by that logic; Aliens exist, Evolution Is God, NORAD really does track Santa every year, and Bush got elected because he’s the best man for the job?
92. Crimanon - May 10th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Two of those were sarcastic, I’ll let you figure it out.
93. Spanner in the works - May 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
And Crimanon is just a series of black pixels on my white PC screen, nothing else. One of those was sarcastic, you figure which. I’ll let you figure out why the Crimanon Occam logic was up the creek too.
Sure, more Americans than not thought George Bush was the best man for the job. After already having seen him in action for one term! What does that prove? That George Bush is an alien? Or the majority of Americans are aliens? Or that we are all aliens and aliens are stupid inventions of God?
Voltaire tried to figure out this sort of thing. The first answer he came up with was that all’s for the best in the best of possible worlds. The second, later on, was that the whole lot’s a complete cock-up and there’s nothing we can do, so we might as well forget about it and mess around in our own garden instead. One of those was probably sarcastic …
By the way, all major religions now accept the concept of evolution, so yes, evolution is God. No contest.
94. Spanner in the works - May 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
P.S.
Like all science, Occam’s Razor only works on logic. Also it only operates where there are two or more conflicting answers to the same hypothesis, when it will supply the most likely answer, given enough evidence to tip the balance.
The answer may also perhaps differ over time according to new and incoming evidence.
Science never claims ANY answer to be definitive and final. The best answer only stands until it can be knocked down by a more convincing one.
Science doesn’t claim anything is impossible either. It will, however, give you odds for or against, based on our knowledge of the universe at the time (read Dawkins). It won’t deny the possibility that half of humanity is metamorphosed green alien slime-lizards. It will just tell you that at our present state of knowledge they (or we!) are not.
Also like science, Occam’s Razor is not functional in areas of faith and belief. It will give an idea of the liklihood of any given concept of ‘God’ according to observable and measurable phenomena. That’s all. But apart from the fact that we’re a bit short of evidence in that department, faith and belief are different animals altogether. So essentially you’re on your own.
If you want to believe in green alien slime-lizards, that’s you problem. Green Alien Slime-lizard Smoking Man has criogenic capsules to keep people like you safely out of the way.
Here endeth the X-Files conspiracy lesson.
95. Randall - May 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Spanner:
In regards to Chamberlain you’ve unfortunately missed the boat. Somewhat.
Chamberlain was neither ultra-naive nor ultra-devious. Rather, he was a somewhat tired man whose advisors were of the old-school-tie variety, which in the 1930s meant they were much more likely to be rabidly anti-communist than anti-fascist. This doesn’t mean Chamberlain or any of his people had any actual sympathy for Hitler and his ilk; of course not. But there would have been (and was) a certain amount of tolerance for him (up to a point) as long as it was felt that he could be controlled.
However, at some point even the British ruling class realized that Hitler could not be “controlled” even marginally, and that clearly Britain was going to have to go to war again. The state of preparedness being what it was, it became necessary to buy time while the might of Britain could be built up. Chamberlain therefore embarked (finally) on a delaying action. ALSO, however, Britain was dealing with a reluctant partner in France. The British knew they needed France to be as resolute as they were in opposing Hitler; unfortunately this was not the case, since France had lost nearly an entire generation of men fighting the first World War, and was not anxious to get involved in another. Gradually, of course, the French came around–but again, for a time, this required a delaying action on the part of the British.
So in a sense you have it sort of correct–Chamberlain was buying a time–he was not so naive to believe he had “peace in our time” in his hands. But neither did the Germans fall for it. They knew the mood of their adversaries and their capabilities, and feared a united and resolute France and Great Britain. The fact is that despite all the vaunted tales about German might at the start of WWII, they were still outgunned and outmanned by a combined French/British coalition, and they knew it. Hitler may not have cared, but he also grasped the realities a bit, and he *wanted* his war to start, therefore, while his enemies were less strong than they might become, if he gave them too much time to arm up.
All of this is confirmed by foreign office reports of the time, which did not become declassified until after the war, of course.
Munich, then, was a bluff all around. The Brits knew it, the French knew it, and the Nazis knew it.
96. Jan - May 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Randall,
Your post# 95 is excellent information. Well said.
I like reading your posts, you’re very well informed.
97. Spanner in the works - May 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Agreed with 96, Randall. A nice historical review.
To which I add:
Of course my tuppenny-worth was inevitably a gross simplification for the present purposes. Personally I have never believed that Chamberlain was a naïve anyway, but many have expressed that view and some still do. I continue to think it looks potentially useful for him to have kept the nazis guessing by appearing to have believed Hitler at that moment though.
Sure, the nazis were unprepared, but, naval power aside, not so much as the rest. The idea that Hitler was not planning for a world war is well supported by the type of armaments possessed by Germany at that time (no long-range strategic bomber force, for example). Their basic battle modus operandi was blitzkrieg (lightning war), essentially tactical rather than strategic, and with relatively limited short-term aims. Hitler always tended to ‘play it by ear’ and make it up as he went along. Lack of an immediate long-sighted aim is also borne out by what happened early on, when the Panzer spearhead ran out of steam chasing the Brits back to Dunkirk. (It is said they - the Germans - had as many horses as tanks!) Also the stukas (blitzkrieg aircraft) were unable to finish off the troops on the beach because their bombs exloded deep in the sand. Stukas and most other German tactical offensive aircraft would soon prove a turkey-shoot for modern allied fighters. However the German fighter arm was far superior to any other initially, because it was numerically powerful and at least equal technically, and because of combat experience gained during the Spanish Civil War. It failed over Britain partly through insufficient fuel capacity to remain in the combat zone for more than a few minutes, and partly because of Göring’s interference. (Gee, thanks, Hermann!)
Another example of German strategic unpreparedness was the utterly pathetic preparations for operation Sealion, which would probably have been a failed invasion force under almost any circumstances.
The fact the nazis knew in 1938 that a war with Britain with Britain was inevitable is debatable (with France, yes). There was much sympathy for nazi aims in (very) high places in Britain (no names here, they are all in various internet history sites), or at the very least many saw no reason to oppose Germany and thereby weaken Britain (likewise until Pearl Harbour a majority of the U.S.population). You can also add to that an extremely powerful and influential pacifict movement, which the visionary Churchill constantly found himself opposing. As you say, hatred and fear of communism was one prime motive in Britain, but sadly, anti-semitism cannot be excluded either. We had our fascists.
There were also anglophiles in the German, even nazi hierarchy. It is well known that nazis admired the British Empire, and there was a current among at least some of them that they and the British might perhaps carve up and rule the world between them, with the co-operation of the Nordic races, and essentially in combination against Soviet Russia.
Some think Rudolf Hess was a solo lunatic loose cannon, but in fact his strange flight to Scotland early in the war is now more accepted as a co-ordinated attempt to contact those in Britain known or presumed to be sympathetic to the nazis and to persuade them to forge an alliance against the Soviets. He was, of course, tricked, poor sod!
The presence of pro-nazis in all of central and northern Europe is well-testified by the number of willing collaborators (quislings, etc.) in the occupied territories.
There is a strong view that had the British and French resisted by threatened force Hitler’s early unopposed territorial adventures, his aggression would have been snuffed out altogether, as the two powers were certainly stronger overall at that early moment, despite their pathetic obsolescent airforces.
I suspect such an alternative history might only have led to one of two consequences: postponment of the ‘existing’ war for a year or so; or some kind of war involving Russia (if Stalin didn’t keep on executing his best officers!). In either case Austro-German Jews would still have been gassed, and fast-advancing technology would surely have led to an even more terrifying conflict, perhaps involving nuclear weaponry and intercontinental ballistic missiles both in the European and American theatres (third generation V weapons designed by Werner von Braun - he was working on them - and/or their equivalent by his Russian rivals).
98. Spanner in the works - May 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
apoloogies for the odd typographical error above.
99. Spanner in the works - May 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
And for apoloogies!
100. Spanner in the works - May 12th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Hola Randall and Jan,
Since we three seem to have cornered this site, at least temporarily, as a forum for history from the middle of last century, I’d like to thank Jan for recommending
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html. I’ll give you my opinion of it, for what its worth, and ask whether Randall, if interested, agrees or not.
Other than saying it’s a personal analysis of how Hitler obtained and held power, and how this relates to leadership conspiracy today I’m not going to reiterate its contents. Too long. Anyone interested can visit the site themselves. I’m also going to stick to the Hitler bit and (almost) leave Dubya for others to savage.
I may have a bit of trouble because I’m working from memory of the web text rather than cross-checking, but my overall reaction is clear: interesting but deeply flawed historically and also, sad to say, selling a lot of truly brave Germans short.
Hitler was no isolated phenomenon. He came close to being an historical inevitability. Among the more immediate events that propelled him to power were the humiliation of Germany at the end of WW1, a humiliation led by President Wilson, and a lesson well learned by the victorious allies for the end of WW2. Many Germans felt they had been more betrayed than defeated militarily. They not only felt resentment and humiliation, but also the consequent urge to continue
‘unfinished business’. Hitler was not only the perfect front-man for this (and he truly was a charismatic, hypnotic orator), but he was clever enough to give them back their national pride, senses of identity and purpose, and full employment after a disastrous postwar economic collapse.
But the roots of Hitler go way back to the causes of WW1 and further beyond into German 19th C history. Germany was the last of the great European powers to form, and largely missed out on the imperial card deal: a bit of New Guinea here, a few chips in Africa there, but mere peanuts besides the colonies of her main rivals, France and GB. This, coupled with the teutonic Bismark view, gave rise the concept of lebensraum, the need for living space, fresh territory, for a vigorous and growing industrial power.
Jewish influence in commerce, science, medicine and the arts was always strong, and until later in the 19th C an integral part of German culture. Mendelssohn was worshipped by Leipzig, for example. But things soon started to go sourly anti-semitic. Many of Brahm’s friends were Jewish, but a contemporary fellow genius of a composer was one of the nastiest racists imaginable: little Richard Wagner, who would gladly have personally thrown Jews into gas chambers. Although Jews stil continued in German culture and even fought in WW1, a groundswell of racial hatred against them was gradually building up. Hitler did not create it, he merely expoited what already existed.
Essentially, WW1 was imperial rivalry and a first move towards lebensraum, whereas WW2 was pure lebensraum, racial superiority (the Übermensch) and subjugation of the Untermensch. There was nothing unusual about eugenics in those days, plenty of intelligent and cultured people everywhere talked openly about the racial superiority of the western world. Most saw it as a paternalistic duty to care for the ‘white man’s burden’. Hitler and his gang uniquely saw it as a chance to create neoslavery and even included Slavs among the Untermenschen (i.e. Tchaikovsky, Pushkin, Tolstoy, etc.!).
It was not Hitler using and conning the Germans of that time, by the way. The majority of his countrymen welcomed him with open arms and supported him until things started to go pear-shaped late on, and many even after that. He was virtually worshipped by large sections of the populace.
Nor was Hitler a lone figure standing clear of the rest of Germany. The nazis were a well-ordered hierarchy, from the Führer next down to his immediate gang, whose names we know so well, on down to the SS and other state police organisations, and finally the armed services. Some high-ranking military figures also revelled in his adventures, others, probably including Rommel, merely acted on orders, because that’s what a good soldier has to do.
Now let’s finally get to the bit about cowardly Germans and technological weapons. All nations use, and always have used, technological weapons, and the best they can get or invent. Not because they are afraid of hand-to-hand combat, but because as rule that’s how you win wars. Major ones anyway. Britain did, the U.S. did and Japan did as well. There were probably few braver and more ferocious fighters at close quarters in WW2 than Germans. Think Stalingrad, even though they lost. They have that tradition in common with Turks as seen in Korea. If not at war with them, you’d be more than pleased to have either of those at your side in a tight corner. So let’s debunk that myth.
As for German’s not standing up to Hitler morally or physically, haven’t you heard of von Stauffenberg? If not, go see the forthcoming movie (film) with Tom Cruise. What about all the Germans who took terrible risks hiding and saving Jews, for whom Schindler is the iconic name. And the thousands who tried to resist the nazis from the early days on and mostly ended up tortured and executed. Don’t dare insult their heroism.
No, Jan, Germans weren’t overcivilised and weak morally and physically. They took a terrible wrong direction, and partly through the fault of the rest of us in isolating them after WW1, that’s all.
And I reckon Americans would have the same potential backbone too if ever the chips were down.
I’ll just end by saying that whatever Dubya is, he’s not Hitler, or Stalin, or even Castro. He can and will be got rid of democratically. Who is chosen next and what they do is something else again.
101. Jan - May 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Spanner,
Woodrow Wilson didn’t lead the humiliation of Germany in their surrender in WWI.
Woodrow Wilson drafted the 14 points of surrender for Germany that would have allowed them to keep their dignity and payback reparations along with agreements for territorial assignments.
Woodrow Wilson came down with Bird Flu and was not able to attend the meetings for the final terms for surrender. France then ramrodded the terms of surrender and put the screws to Germany. Germany did not start WWI, they were brought into it through agreements with Austria, yet Germany was made to pay the hardest because they were winning the war until the United States got involved. Germany still had enough fight to finish off France, who was ready give up entirely then move on and finish off England, but with the United States getting involved and the reports of fresh American soldiers coming off the transports by the thousands, Germany knew they didn’t have enough to stand up to the Fresh American forces and felt it better to surrender. Because France had been so heavily stomped on by Germany and this also stems from Frances defeat from the Franco-Prussian War that France came up with new terms for surrender that was responsible for putting Germany into a depression from unreasonable terms for reparations. Personally I think it served France right to be flanked and put our of WWII early by Germany. That and the stupidity of the French general that was convinced that WWII was going to be another Trench Warfare campaign that France spent tons of money with state of the art trenches that didn’t do a thing to protect France.
So no, the blame for Germany being unfairly treated after WWI lays with France and Brittan. Brittan because they were also angry but let France have their way with the terms.
102. Randall - May 13th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Spanner:
Yes, I largely agree with everything you wrote; sadly I’m limited by time at the moment and can’t comment much…. except to say, I don’t know what this business is about “cowardly Germans” but yes, it’s of course silly.
It’s also true that the Germans were not prepared for a protracted war when WWII began. Hitler least of all, but then Hitler was certainly no military genius, despite the glaring successes of Germany in the early years of the war. The German army was not anywhere near fully-mechanized (in fact it was quite the opposite) and the vaunted Luftwaffe was almost completely tied to ground operations–which worked rather well in the fast and brutal engagements of the early war, but became a fatal flaw as the situation ground on. And yes, the lack of a four-engined bomber was a telling and, in the end, fatal omission.
It’s clear Hitler thought he could keep the Western powers at bay (or could cow them into submission) so that he could focus his energies on conquering Russia; he hadn’t counted as much on a resolute Great Britain, and he and his men had no *real* plan for defeating Britain decisively (certainly not by invasion–as you point out, Sealion was woefully ill-planned–the Germans are not a seafaring people really, and had no concept of the needs of a large amphibious assault) although the u-boat campaign might have done this in time.
103. Spanner in the works - May 13th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Thanks for the reply, Randall.
I know what you mean about time. I lost an hour or so of sleep last night punting out the above ‘thesis’.
Cowardly populations is the theme of Jan’s website. I.e. that tyrants like Hitler (and Dubya!) get into power because the rest of us are too ‘fin de Roman Empire’ to resist physically and morally.
I might have added above that Hitler was greatly helped by the connivance of big industrialists and aristocratic families, out of cynical opportunism rather than cowardice. They imagined he could be used to put Germany back in gear and then be tossed to one side. The best laid plans …
Like the Luftwaffe, U-boats were highly effective at the start of the campaign. By halfway through the war though the allies had organised many lethal counter measures and the Germans suffered appalling losses, such that they were no longer much of a pawn in the game. I can’t recall the final loss percentage, it will be quoted on appropriate websites. The splendid anti-war film ‘Das Boot’ (The Boat) gives a magnificently claustrophobic close-up and moving non-partisan account of the fearful lives led by German submariners. The director actually had a full-scale U-boat built by the original constructors. What price digital imagery!
I also believe the Germans were bound to lose WW2 ultimately for the same reason that they lost WW1. Ever increasing shortages of vital materials, above all fuel, and food. In both wars the civilian population came close to starvation.
However, it is equally true that Britain could probably never have held out without U.S. lease-lend aid - that is before America entered the war - even allowing for Canada.
104. Randall - May 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“Cowardly populations is the theme of Jan’s website. I.e. that tyrants like Hitler (and Dubya!) get into power because the rest of us are too ‘fin de Roman Empire’ to resist physically and morally.”
Ah. Well THIS I wouldn’t quite argue with (a little, but only so much) but I also wouldn’t call it “cowardice.”
I do think it required a certain willingness to be servile, on the part of the German people… and I don’t say this is confined to them, of course–any people can fall into that trap. But there was also a tradition of this kind of willingness to follow the leader–the romantic longing for “THE LEADER”… that the Germans had long had… going back to Luther, in a sense… and before.
So… it *could* happen here…. but Americans would have to warp themselves out of shape quite a bit first. Which isn’t impossible. The more complacent, fat, and apathetic we get…. the less we’re invested in our democracy, which requires constant participation and vigil.
I don’t QUITE agree that the Germans were *bound* to lose WWII… of course in real terms, they WERE bound to… they couldn’t take on the US AND the USSR. But had they first found a way of disposing of the USSR as an adversary–if they hadn’t bumbled that… well… one never knows.
But really of course you’re right… the only scenario I can imagine is simply a far bloodier and more protracted war, with the Allies (or what was left of them) victorious anyway. Thank god the war went as quickly as it did then, and thank god it ended as suddenly and forcibly as it did… that’s how I look at it. (I don’t cringe from the atom bomb.. neither do I delight in it. I simply think it saved more lives than it cost… many more. It was expedient in that it ended the war and spared further bloodshed. At a terrible cost. But then that’s why war should be avoided… so we don’t have to do things like that to each other).
105. Spanner in the works - May 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Hear, hear Randall.
I just discovered Jan’s 101 (I enter the site from the bottom up!) and have some response for there, but just quickly to say how thoroughly and utterly I agree with you about the A-bombs.
But more than that. I regard the hapless victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as martyrs for the survival of many or most of the rest of us. I’m quite convinced that people have so little imagination that they need to SEE the effects of something like a nuclear explosion on humanity before deciding not to use it. Imagine the Japanese had caved in to the mere threat of Hiroshima and we had then gone on to an active nuclear ‘hot’ war with the Soviets. All too horribly possible an alternative scenario in my imagination. I’ll add a bit more about technological weaponry later.
However, the Japanese were never going to cave in easily. It is so easy for modern pacifists from pre- to post-CND, including many American friends of ours, to spit hatred against the U.S. for what Enola Gay and her fellow Superfort did. It usually shuts them up when I point out that the Japanese High Command was perfectly prepared to sacrifice a second city before finally throwing in the towel. Also that since several of them have WW2 servicemen as parents or grandparents, they probably wouldn’t be here today if the war had dragged on to a bitter ‘conventional’ end.
Apropos, a recent television programme where we live did an on-the-spot in Afghanistan. It pointed out that if you want to talk serious weapons of mass destruction in the world, talk anti-personel mines!
Nor have our innocents abroad the slightest knowledge of how a whole island full of Japanese women and children jumped off the cliff to commit suicide in the sea, because (a) they had been brainwashed that Americans would eat them, and (b) because it is against the Japanese codes for ANYONE to surrender. That would have been the ongoing story to the bitter end.
Oh, and yes: firebombing of Japanese cities (which would have continued anyway) did more damage, killed more people, and left more horribly wounded.
106. Spanner in the works - May 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Another quickie, Randall.
The Russian winter clobbered the nazi attempt to reach the Ukraine oilfields, just as it clobbered Napoleon. I have an interesting book on El Niño which notes it as a global phenomenon and traces its history way back. It seems that both Hitler and Napoleon encountered exceptional El Niño-driven winters in Russia. So God must be a …
And of course we get back to the tactical versus strategic argument. The Russians could still have gone on and on retreating in depth and finally perhaps stretched the German lines to breaking point. Not to mention the ever-increasing amount of hostile territory the nazis would have had to control. The Wehrmacht didn’t even have proper winter protective clothing. You couldn’t beat Russia by blitzkrieg! Well, nuclear blitzkrieg aside, maybe.
107. Spanner in the works - May 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Jan, thanks for the response, and for pointing out the clumsy way I had involved Woodrow Wilson.
If there is any excuse for not making one’s points clear, I can only claim that I was typing late at night, and also trying to squeeze a huge chunk of history into a few paragraphs.
What I intended was that Wilson led (better still to have said initiated) the process (rather than the humiliation), insofar as his 14 Points were the basis, and the only basis, for the surrender terms. Of course only four of his originals ended up as part of it. They were in fact known simply as the 14 Points, and if one adds anything to his original intention, ‘for peace’ or ‘for an armistice’ would probably be better than ‘for surrender’. They were also produced well before the end of the war.
It’s all very well to blame the French and British for taking a tougher line with the Germans, but you have to remember the terrible attrition suffered by both their armies, the massive loss in a whole generation of young men, in no way equivalent to American suffering. Public opinion, as much as anything else, drove their leaders to treat Germany, the perceived aggressor, harshly. Unwise, maybe, but understandable under the circs.
Wilson was also a fine idealist rather than a pragmatist. Whether his 14 points, if adopted, would have done the trick
better is a moot point. The European politicians certainly believed not. They saw the stick rather than the carrot as the appropriate means of quelling Germany.
I think your line on Germany being collared reluctantly into WW1 truly is soft-soap. By that logic Princip murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his charming wife and all the rest got dragged in through mutual treaties. There is some truth in that. But I doubt if a country which ploughed through Belgium and most of France in short order, nearly reaching Paris, and was always the miltary equal of the rest thrown together until the last moment was exactly shy of a good rumble! Remeber, the last words of Wilson’s 14 Points spoke of never again allowing German expansionism, or words to that effect.
I recently read a book in Spanish called ‘Nazis en el Sur’ (Nazis in the South). It’s fascinating, and by an Argentinian research journalist about German colonisation of temperate South America and the strategic part this was intended to play, and to a much lesser degree did play. Although the core of the book dealt with WW2, it went right back historically. A base for supply and warships was already set up in Patagonia by 1914, and the German force that sank the small British fleet off Chile was refuelled there before it was itself sunk in the Battle of the Falklands. The pre-existing plan was to occupy the Falklands and use them as a base for German maritime South Atlantic operations. Hardly the stance of nation disinterested in or unprepared for warfare, I suggest.
I think it would be rash to anticipate that Germany would have won had America not entered the war. Maybe a punch-drunk draw. And no, Germany wasn’t winning before America came over. (John Wayne was only a babe in arms too!) In fact it was an ebb-and-flow stalemate. The European allies were still very far from beaten. They had recently been reorganised under a very effective joint command, and the French mutinies were soon a thing of the past. Air power was becoming ever more significant, and although the Germans had their magnificent ‘circus’ system, they were becoming hopelessly outnumbered throughout 1917 and 1918. They were forced into a largely defensive pose against, in particular, the rampantly aggressive policy of the RFC, or RAF as it eventually became. Excellent and experienced American pilots had already been involved as volunteers in the Lafayette squadron, but they were drafted into the U.S. Army Air Corps when it arrived. So they had to give up their finely tuned fighting machines and wait for yonks for a load of clapped out French crap aircraft, since the U.S. had no modern front line stuff in WW1. As a result, American flyers hardly got involved before the war ended.
Perhaps the most critical factor wouldn’t have changed either. Through geographic isolation, the Germans were running out of raw materials, and their food supplies dropped ever closer to starvation level. Unlike the British, they had no seaborne supply lines.
I certainly do agree that the arrival of the Americans really deprived Germany of all hope at all of victory.
Actually, you’ve not got the Maginot line quite right either. It was indeed based on the tactics of WW1, but updated fairly efficiently by tank traps and heavy gun emplacements to prevent any kind of ground advance. The Germans put up similar defences against the later allied seaborne invasion forces. It worked in its own right. The problem was, it should have been extended along the Belgium border to the coast. That might have caused Hitler a real headache. He could have shot the basically obsolescent French airforce out of the sky, but certainly would have been seriously hampered, if not stopped altogether in the all-important fast ground blitzkrieg follow-up. The problem, as you say, Jan, was that the French were once again outflanked. Apparently they anticipated that, but supposed they would have enough enough time to regroup and hit the Germans at the Belgian bottleneck. They didn’t.
Finally, it’s easy to blame French generals and others for not anticipating advances in warfare. But I recall during the Cold War that people were advised to duck under a table in the event of a nuclear attack! Chimps discovered the possibility of throwing sticks and stones at enemies a few thousand years or more back. Their technology hasn’t changed one whit meanwhile. Humans invent a new piece of warfare gadgetry, or a tactic, and its almost out of date by the time it come into service. We can scarcely keep up with our ingenuity. Instant intellectual and technological evolution have effectively replaced plodding Darwinian evolution for our species!
By the way, I should point out that I am a botanist, not an historian, and my picture is largely built up of what I know to be true, what I am pretty sure is true, both of those from memory with an occasional jog from a website, and what looks logical through deduction. I have taste-dipped into interesting bits of history, but not studied deeply. (O.K. A little knowledge … as Pope said … I know.) So none of this stuff is properly researched or capable of citation (My citations are limited to botanical papers!) So don’t be surprised if you find gaps and errors in my coverage.
108. Spanner in the works - May 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
jfrater
You’re very quiet. Are you happy with your site being railroaded like this, and not altogether exactly on the conspiracy rails all the time either?
I can’t speak for the others in this current trio, but I’ll certainly go away if you’re pissed off.
109. Jan - May 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Randall,
I came across that site and felt it was a good one to post here because it is relevant to the conspiracy topic. I don’t agree with everything in the comparisons but some of the things do merit.
Spanner and Randall,
I like to dabble in history. I work in engineering for a company that manufacture machinery but history has always been an interest of mine.
I appreciate the information both of you have posted. Whether you’ve just dabbled or not you both had brought up things that I didn’t know about and have added to the information that I already knew.
I really enjoy this sharing of information.
110. jfrater - May 14th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Spanner In The Works: I have actually just arrived back from a holiday in Ireland (seeing the last parts of Europe before I return to New Zealand) - the discussion above occurred in my absence. I am definitely not annoyed! It is great when people put across valid points and do so without a fight ensuing
I must confess to not having read all of your comments (due to their length and the thousands of other comments I need to read to catch up after my 3 day holiday) but what I did read seemed fair enough
And for the record, there are very few conspiracy theories I believe - I find them all very interesting, but I don’t follow them for the most part.
111. Spanner in the works - May 14th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Since Leaders of nations appears to a big issue in these conspiracy sites, can I share an off-the-wall, lateral notion that occurred to me in an odd moment recently?
It struck me that our attitude to leaders has a number of things in common with that of militant feminists towards men. The bile they pour out towards the male sex is based on their view that men are virtually a separately evolved nasty, selfish, aggressive species which somehow comes together with the sex that really matters (women) for the purpose of procreation. If women could only give birth to women via parthenogenesis (virgin birth), they go on, men would be redundant. Of course that latter point would be true, although I’ll skip here what would be seriously lost by sacrificing genetic intercombination by outbreeding. (In which case better that women interbred with women - Ah, so that explains lesbianism!)
What they either conveniently forget, are ignorant of, or haven’t taken into account is Darwinian natural selection: in this case sexual selection for optimum survival. With a few marginal exceptions such as arranged marriages and rape, women CHOOSE their partners and are perfectly free not to breed if none of the availables are suitable! The fact that you have been driven to put up with any Tom, Dick or Harry by the breeding urge of your genes is no cop out. Therefore the men women have are essentially the result of their own collective choice.
Now we have several lady friends who became romantically obsessed by the idea of the handsome, dashing, masculine arab. Some of them went so far as to marry one, ignoring our anxious cautions. Every single such union ended in tears, usually with any children disappearing terminally back into the Middle East with dad.
It’s easy to work out the need for testosterone-loaded protective brute strength in a partner by an early female, vulnerable in her cave with her helpless infants. As the cartoons show, he who clubs her over the loaf and drags her off by the barnet can do the same to a sabre-toothed cat.
That need lasted as long as hand-to-hand combat and the like on a wide scale took place, or we had to take on tough physical tasks without machinery. Nowadays brute strength is only marginally needed in everyday life and is largely sublimated in sport and keeping our bodies reasonably in trim.
Meanwhile technology gradually relpaced or overcame main strength. Technology was also a male division of labour, and explains the male tendency to obssessiveness, selfish, blinkered single-mindedness and fascination with gadgetry that feminists also despise. After David and Goliath, which made the better protective partner, a nerdy David with a sling, who had spent hours and hours practicing his shots, or a beefy, dead Goliath with useless muscles from body-building with heavy chunks of rock?
So here we have the female dilemma. They adore sweet, soft poetic guys, but if they she marries one, he doesn’t have the balls to face out the neighbours in a spat, so she grows to despise him. Or she marries the fella who punches the neighbour into submission literally or figuratively, and then finds his excess of hormones leads him to do the same to her when he gets frustrated. No, I’m not a cynic. Many marriages work and are very happy, my first for a good while, for example, and my second altogether. But there are strong trends all the same.
By the way, let’s dispose of this feminist myth that men are the aggressors and women the gentle, nurturing peace lovers. Which sex used to hand white feathers (a sign of cowardice) to men not in uniform during WW1? And Maggie Thatcher? The amazons? Queen Boudicca, or however you like to spell her?
Begin to get the connection with leaders? To begin with WE (s)elect them. Elect a ‘nice guy’ like Jimmy Carter, and you’re soon kicking him up the arse for being too weak. So you want a toughie like a Maggie Thatcher or a Bush. But when they start throwing their weight (or your weight!) around, lots don’t like it. It seems to be a no win situation.
I except dictators and tyrants who are not elected democratically, whether left, right or centre. They are simply rapists, or if derived from a dynasty, arranged marriages!
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is only half-true. I think it is fair to say though that power must change perspectives. I would put a lot of money on the probability that if you sat any active CND disarmer in the Oval Office during the cold war crisis, showed them all those Soviet missiles pointing into the heart of the U.S., including at their own near and dear ones, and said, O.K., you going to switch ours off?, most of them wouldn’t.
The other problem is that leaders are to a certain extent an unknown package before we elect them and they get unwrapped in power. Do you know one who lived up to their promises at the hustings? As I said before though, there isn’t that excuse wh