Victor Davis Hanson compares and contrasts.
Well worth reading, as is most of what Hanson writes.
Ta-Nehisi Coates and the reductionist theory of everything bad that ever happened to black people
First, a disclaimer: I have not read T-Nehisi Coates’ new book entitled Between the World and Me. I’ve only read summaries or reviews of it, although I’m familiar with his thought from reading many of his articles for The Atlantic and other periodicals.
Why am I writing about the book? It seems to be an important statement, not only about Coates’ point of view but mostly because it’s been widely praised and is being widely read. Right now it’s number nine on Amazon’s best-seller list as well as number one on the NY Times nonfiction list.
So that’s an influential book with a whole lot of readers. It’s been called “brilliant” by the WaPo, and Coates has been anointed as James Baldwin’s successor by Toni Morrison, who considers the book “revelatory” and “required reading.” That gives you just a small idea of the reception it has gotten.
Reading Scott Johnson’s review of the book in City Journal reveals that at the beating heart of Between the World and Me lies a reductionist rage that collapses everything bad that ever happened to black people in America—and is still happening to black people in America—at the door of white racism. An excerpt from Johnson:
Coates aspires to Baldwin’s literary quality in overwrought prose that makes the book almost unreadable. He is both verbose and repetitious. He must speak of the “breaking” of the black “body” more than 100 times. The text of the book begins on page 5 (“Last Sunday the host of a popular news show asked me what it meant to lose my body” – a question that remains unanswered at book’s end). By page 12, I felt a bit like a broken man myself. According to Coates, “people who believe themselves to be white” have constructed the concept of race and subjugated blacks from the beginning of American history through the breaking of the black body. “People who believe they are white” are those who see the United States as an exceptional nation and believe in the American Dream. Coates calls them Dreamers and, unlike President Obama’s DREAMers, they are not to be indulged but resisted.
There’s more, much much more; read the whole thing if you’re interested. Johnson also offers several lengthy quotes from Coates, but this one is especially telling:
“Black on black” crime is jargon, violence to language, which vanishes the men who engineered the [restrictive property] covenants, who fixed the loans, who planned the projects, who built the streets and sold red ink by the barrel. And this should not surprise us. The plunder of black life was drilled into this country in its infancy and reinforced across its history so that plunder has become an heirloom, an intelligence, a sentience, a default setting to which, likely to the end of our days, we must invariably return.
The killing fields of Chicago, of Baltimore, of Detroit, were created by the policy of Dreamers, but their weight, their shame, rests solely on those who are dying in them. There is a great deception in this. To yell “black-on-black crime” is to shoot a man and then shame him for bleeding.
As this thoughtful and lengthy reader review at Amazon states:
It is as simple as this: [according to Coates] there is literally not a single thing a black person can do wrong that is their fault in a cosmic sense. Every single moral, ethical or legal crime is carried out as a result of the effects of White Supremacy. Some people, including myself, characterize this as true racism. Denying that black people are capable of being agents or partners in their own life or destiny is the ultimate kind of racism and bigotry…
…Mr. Coates seems to think it is OK to insult all white poeple in the gravest of possible ways. All white people exist on a spectrum that has “benign neglect” and “free rider” on one end and “violent torture murderer” and “slave master” on the other end. In Mr. Coates’ world, to wake up white is to wake up a guilty person. All white Americans are guilty, it is only a matter of determining where they fit on the guilt spectrum. This acts as a kind of mirror image of his view of black people which I discussed in the previous point.
…White people are literally lined up around the block to get on “the right side” of this book and its author. They mistakenly and cynically believe that doing so will inoculate them against the charge of being a racist oppressor themselves.
As I wrote just a couple of days ago:
…the promised land – equality of outcome – has not been reached, and doesn’t seem all that close despite the achievements of some black people and the evidence of President Obama’s election. The persistence of inequality of outcome can only be explained by two factors or a combination of those two factors: problems inherent in the black community or black people, or problems inherent in the non-black (white and “other) community’s treatment of black people. Look inward or look outward, or look both ways.
It is much less painful to look outward, however.
Coates appears not to look both ways but to look solely outward: whites are deeply, deeply guilty, and blacks are their “broken” victims. It is his prerogative to believe this and write about it, and I am fairly certain that nothing I could say could ever change his mind. What is especially interesting to me, however, is how many white people (or as Coates would say, “people who believes themselves to be white”) buy it (literally, as well). As the commenter at Amazon puts it, they are “lined up around the block to get on ‘the right side’ of this book and its author. They mistakenly and cynically believe that doing so will inoculate them against the charge of being a racist oppressor themselves.”
I do have a quarrel with the use of the word “cynically” there. I don’t think cynicism is a part of it for the vast majority. I think self-flagellation is, especially for younger people, who have had guilt for the crime of being white drilled into them from their early days in school. The left fosters and uses this guilt as a way to effect societal change, to persuade white people and black alike to give up any idea of Western society as superior or desirable for both races, and to change the power structure (that’s a favorite leftist term) in ways that give the left more power.
Who loses? Both races. In fact, I think black people probably lose more.
This has been reflected in the presidency of Barack Obama. Just as his election seemed to prove how far the nation had come from its earlier more overtly racist days, so it also provided hope of better things. At least it did in the beginning, but those “better things” in the racial sense have most definitely not materialized.
That is not an accident. Obama’s tenure have been marked by a purposeful fanning of the flames of racial division and tension, and the economic situation in the black community has declined further and faster than that of the white community in the years since Obama has become president.
Carly Fiorina’s Reagan Library speech
[NOTE: If you watch it and like it, please pass it around via email, Facebook, Twitter, and any other way you can think of. I’d really like to see her poll numbers rise so that she gets the exposure of being in the top 10 debate.]
I haven’t had a chance to watch this yet, but I’ve been told by several commenters that it’s excellent and well worth a listen. So I’m posting it.
Yes, I’m a Fiorina fan, much to my surprise. And it’s not because she’s a woman—I couldn’t care less about that, except for the fact that I think a woman would defuse Hillary’s talking points in that regard. That’s assuming Hillary is the nominee, which I’m still assuming.
I do understand that Fiorina has several vulnerabilities that would be exploited and that she would have to turn into pluses. The first is her lack of a history in political office (although there’s something to be said for that). The second is that, in her previous run for office, she lost (somewhat but not entirely mitigated by the fact that it was in bluer-than-blue California, and she did quite well for a Republican there). The third is her tenure and firing at Hewlett-Packard, which she has explained but which is still very susceptible to criticism.
The fourth is that she’s not doing well in the polls up till now.
An ebola vaccine may be in the works
This is potentially very good news. Very:
Researchers gave one dose of the new vaccine, developed by the Canadian government, to more than 4,000 people who were contacts of confirmed Ebola cases within 10 days of being identified. In comparison, more than 3,500 contacts of other Ebola cases got the shot after a 10-day delay. In the group that received the vaccine immediately, there were no Ebola cases versus 16 cases in people who got delayed vaccination…
Researchers are still assessing possible side effects; the most serious seemed to be fever and the stress experienced by patients who believe such symptoms were due to Ebola.
“This (vaccine) could be the key that we’ve been missing to end the outbreak,” Neuman said. “I don’t see any reason on humanitarian grounds why it should not be used immediately.”
Sometimes these things turn out to be much less promising than originally described, however. In addition, the epidemic seems to have really died down for now, although the disease will almost certainly rear up again in the future.
In the event of an anti-Iran Deal veto override, Obama could simply ignore Congress
And I have little doubt that that’s exactly what he would do if he thought it would work.
Here are several possible scenarios:
First, [Obama] may simply announced that every bank that does business with Iran in accordance with the deal will not face the sanctions in the Menendez-Kirk amendment, as reinstated and strengthened by the Corker deal, as activated by the veto override. So, number one, ignore U.S. statute,” {Brad Sherman, Democrat member of the House] explained.
“Number two, he will tell the rest of the world to follow the deal and do business with Iran as specified in the deal, saying that is the reasonable thing to do.”
Sherman, who is currently undecided on the deal, went further to say that Obama could go to foreign countries and persuade their governments to mandate that their banks do business with Iran even if the banks are scared to do so to the full extent of the deal.
“He might go to foreign countries and say, ”˜Look maybe your banks are reluctant to do business with the Iran, because they fear this Congress will somehow get them maybe they’ll need a little push, so I’ll speak to your parliament.’”
Eventually, Sherman explained, it will become more difficult for the next administration to undo what was just done.
Like many other Democrats, Sherman is undecided (or says he’s undecided and/or wants to appear to be undecided) on how to vote on Corker-Menendez and an Obama veto override:
Democrats appear to be waiting on New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to decide where he stands on the Iran deal, as some think others will follow his lead.
Now, there’s a group of independent thinkers.
My prediction, for what it’s worth (and subject to change as events unroll): the anti-Iran deal measure will pass, but Obama will veto it. Then the override vote will go Obama’s way, but it will be close. It will be close because the Democratic leadership, knowing the public is against the deal, will allow members of Congress in everything but the bluest of blue areas to vote to override, but they will make sure there are still enough votes against an override to keep that override from occurring.
But if by some chance the override does happen, Obama will do exactly what Sherman describes, and more along those lines.
And then Congress will face another decision: whether to impeach and convict. Because if ever such a thing would be deserved by a president, that president would be Barack Obama. The threshold in the Senate for conviction is exactly the same as the threshold for an override, by the way: two-thirds.
Another murder, this time by a legal immigrant
The moment I read this story of a horrific murder I wondered a few things:
An 18-year-old Wyoming man accused of robbing and shooting three members of a family after asking for roadside help told investigators he opened fire after one of the victims laughed at him, an FBI agent said in a court filing Thursday.
Jason Shane, 51, and Tana Shane, 47, died in the Wednesday shooting in the small town of Pryor, FBI spokesman Todd Palmer told The Associated Press. Their daughter, 26-year-old Jorah Shane, was shot in the back when she tried to run away, and she is recovering in a Billings hospital, the woman’s aunt, Ada Shane, said.
The statement by Special Agent Larry McGrail II was filed in U.S. District Court seeking a murder warrant for Jesus Deniz, also known as Jesus Deniz Mendoza, of Worland, Wyoming.
Whether or not he really shot them because “one of the victims laughed at him” (and I suspect that wasn’t the reason), did he actually think that reason would sound like a sufficient excuse for a killing?
What was his immigration status? Note that the article doesn’t even mention this as a possible issue; just the usual treatment of him as the resident of a certain state, in this case Montana.
It turns out that Deniz is a legal immigrant from Mexico who came to this country in May of 2013. The article does not explain how he got his legal status, but my very strong suspicion is that he probably was admitted under the rules about family unification (he would have been 16 years old then).
The details of this crime are especially heartrending and even could be called ironic, because the victims were Good Samaritans who had stopped to offer aid to Deniz:
[Lone survivor, 26-year-old] Jorah Shane recounted to her relatives the events leading to the shooting. Her mother, Tana Shane, drove by a young man parked on the side of the road who told her he had run out of fuel, Ada Shane said.
“He’s only 18, and he looked like an innocent boy,” Ada Shane said. “Both my brother and sister-in-law have big hearts.”
Tana Shane went by her house, picked up her husband and daughter, and they drove back to the stranded car, Ada Shane said. The man pulled a gun and held it to the temple of 51-year-old Jason Shane…
Deniz killed Tana and her husband Jason, and shot Jorah in the back but she lived to tell the tale. He also stole their car.
Another detail in this story is that the Shane family seems to be Native American:
The man told the family to start walking. Tana Shane told her daughter in their Native American language to run. Jorah Shane told her aunt that she heard a shot, started running then heard bullets whizzing by her head. She fell, heard another shot, and started running again toward a church just as a car was pulling out.
She ran to the car, and the frightened driver leaped out, Ada Shane said. Jorah Shane jumped in the driver’s seat and drove to her house with the shooter still firing at her, the aunt said.
The outrage sparked by incidents such as this is what Donald Trump is tapping into. Yes, it’s only one incident, but there are others, and each of them is an incident that didn’t have to happen if our immigration policy (in this case, our legal immigration policy) were more stringent.
[NOTE: See my earlier post from today. The discussion there about compassion for immigrants versus a country’s need to keep it’s people safe is relevant to this post as well.
It’s odd, but I’ve noticed many times (and I notice today) how certain days have certain themes, totally unplanned.
Also please see this previous post.]
Antiracism as the new religion
[Hat tip: Ace.]
This piece by John McWhorter is well worth reading. A few excerpts:
…Antiracism is now a religion. It is inherent to a religion that one is to accept certain suspensions of disbelief. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely””and the answer one gets, despite being somewhat half-cocked, is to be accepted as doing the job…
For example, one is not to ask “Why are black people so upset about one white cop killing a black man when black men are at much more danger of being killed by one another?” Or, one might ask this, very politely””upon which the answers are flabby but further questions are unwelcome…
To say one is not to question is not to claim that no questions are ever asked. The Right quite readily questions Antiracism’s tenets. Key, however, is that among Antiracism adherents, those questions are tartly dismissed as inappropriate and often, predictably, as racist themselves. The questions are received with indignation that one would even ask them, with a running implication that their having been asked is a symptom of, yes, racism’s persistence.
Racism used to be about behavior, often quite overt behavior. Segregation and Jim Crow laws. Clear discrimination in which there was no equality of opportunity. Lynchings. Going further back in time, slavery.
These things are, fortunately, long gone. But the promised land—equality of outcome—has not been reached, and doesn’t seem all that close despite the achievements of some black people and the evidence of President Obama’s election. The persistence of inequality of outcome can only be explained by two factors or a combination of those two factors: problems inherent in the black community or black people, or problems inherent in the non-black (white and “other) community’s treatment of black people. Look inward or look outward, or look both ways.
It is much less painful to look outward, however. And of course there will always be some truth to the claim that racism exists, especially if you define it as thoughtcrime: there is no way to eradicate all elements of racism from some people’s hearts and minds, and this goes for people of all races.
Lately the Left has gotten around the entire dilemma by the elevation of the doctrine of “disparate impact.” In that way, inequality of outcome is assumed to be evidence of inequality of opportunity resulting from racism, even if it’s such a subtle form of racism it cannot be detected in any other way.
Meanwhile, across the pond…
…they’re having a lot of trouble with so-called “migrants” from Africa trying to get into Britain.
A lot of trouble:
David Cameron has said Britain is threatened by a “swarm” of foreigners and the migrant crisis in Calais was likened to a “warzone.”
Migrants were pictured clinging to a lorry as they left the port of Dover, while others in Calais were seen clambering over fences with children in tow.
More than 4,000 increasingly aggressive and desperate migrants largely from war-torn failed African states have stormed through fences in a bid to clamber aboard trains to ”˜El Dorado’ UK.
An estimated 150 have made it to Britain’s shores, with some claiming an increased feeling nationwide that the country is under siege…
Natalie Chapman, of the Freight Transport Association, likened the scenes of chaos in Calais to a “warzone” and fears it is only a matter of time till a British driiver gets killed in the French port.
She said: “The situation in Calais has been escalating over the last few months and you think it can’t get any worse – and then it does.
“For lorry drivers trying to get to the UK it’s like a warzone. You’ve got people who have made in many cases very long and dangerous journeys to try to get to the UK who will stop at nothing to try to get on board.
“We recognise it’s a humanitarian crisis and a complex global situation and that these are human beings, but drivers’ lives are being put at risk by people who are so desperate they have no concern with their own safety and welfare and probably even less for the safety and welfare of the drivers…
Mr Cameron claimed moves would be made to deport more people who arrive in the UK illegally and added: “We will remove more illegal migrants from our country so people know it’s not a safe haven once you’re there.”
There you have a graphic example (follow the link and see the photos) of the deep conflict between a nation’s desire to help bona fide refugees fleeing a very bad situation (a definition that probably fits the majority—although not all—of these “migrants”) and to protect itself, its people, and its borders from an invasion of arrivals who do not share the values of its traditional society and culture. Much of Europe, as well as the US and many other western nations, face that crisis.
A country must protect itself, and has a right to do so. The first responsibility of a government is to protect its people. But most Western nations today feel a responsibility to become a refuge for the beleaguered and unfortunate of the world (“Give me your tired, you poor…the wretched refuse of your teeming shore…). Balancing those two needs was never an easy task, but it has become extremely difficult lately due to (a) liberal guilt and condemnation of the desire to protect oneself and one’s culture as “nativism” (b) the welfare state, drawing more people than before who are coming for the benefits rather than the work (c) modern transportation and communication making it easier to travel (d) the lack of assimilation of arrivals resulting from the teaching of multi-culturalism; and (e) the threat of terrorists crossing the borders as well.
Did I leave anything out?
When the shoe is on the other foot, Hillary says “Ouch!”
Hillary Clinton is hopping mad at the NY Times‘ coverage of the story of an investigation by two inspectors general into whether Clinton’s SOS emails had been “mishandled.” The Times had said the investigation was criminal in nature, and implied Hillary was the target. Neither thing turns out to have been true.
Here are some excerpts from an email Clinton sent to the Times which it did not publish, and which her campaign is releasing [my responses and suggested additions are in brackets]:
We remain perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors have made [we thought the Times only did that to Republicans, and can’t understand why they’re doing it to us now]…
The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world [and I expected it to be nearly as sycophantic to me as it has been to my predecessor, Barack Obama] and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major [Democratic] candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing ‘criminal’ from the headline and text of the story…
I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future. [I have a lot of power, and I’ll be using it to make sure you stay in line in the future.]
Like Hillary, I’m a bit “perplexed” by the Times role in this. My only conclusion is that they see her as a flawed candidate and would like someone else in there. Or maybe Dean Baquet is just completely incompetent. Or maybe both.
By the way, the investigation in question, although not criminal at this point and not focused on Clinton, could conceivably become so. And although the Times was incorrect in the facts it reported, their response is that they were relying on information an official in the Justice Department had given them.
Woody Allen continues to demonstrate his moral bankruptcy
I know, I know: why bother to even discuss Woody Allen at this point?
But this interview with the 79-year-old comedian and film director was featured on Yahoo, and so I admit that I succumbed to the click bait and read the following Allen quote:
I started the relationship with [Soon-Yi Previn, his then-girlfriend Mia Farrow’s adoptive daughter, who was—at most—21 years old at the time to his 56] and I thought it would just be a fling. It wouldn’t be serious, but it had a life of its own. And I never thought it would be anything more,” Allen revealed. “Then we started going together, then we started living together, and we were enjoying it. And the age difference didn’t seem to matter. It seemed to work in our favor actually.”
I wrote that Soon-Yi was 21 at the outset, but there is evidence that she was no older than 20 and perhaps younger. At any rate, she appears to have been over the age of consent. Whatever Allen’s sense of his actual relationship with Farrow’s children may have been, as Farrow’s daughter Soon-Yi stood in a quasi-stepchild role to Allen and any affair with her was a betrayal of Farrow and the other children, in addition to whatever shock may have come from the age difference.
Allen and Soon-Yi have now been married for 20 years (how time flies), so the couple has stood the test of time and then some, particularly by celebrity or Hollywood standards. However, no matter how much time passes, Allen still doesn’t get that he is conveying a profound narcissism and lack of understanding of the depth of the pain he caused. We learn that, when he disrupted Farrow’s entire family by having this affair, it wasn’t even because of a serious reason at first—such as, for example, love—it was for what was in his own words “just a fling.”
Nor does he seem to understand how that sounds to other people. If it is true, at least he should have enough moral awareness to keep quiet about it. But he doesn’t.
[ADDENDUM: By the way, in a completely unrelated story, Mia Farrow is also in the news today for this abominable action.]
Why Fiorina isn’t higher in the polls despite her obvious gifts, and Trump is
I asked that question yesterday, and I’ll try to answer it today.
I believe Carly Fiorina scores low because she’s not held elective office, and she lost the one election she entered. Even though she did well considering it was in bluer-than-blue California, she still lost.
Also, although she can explain her firing from Hewlett-Packard in a way that doesn’t reflect poorly on her (see this and this), the firing still doesn’t sound to the casual listener like a success story.
But far more importantly, Donald Trump””who naturally gains more publicity from his statements and his candidacy because he is flamboyant and somewhat outrageous””–has taken the spot Fiorina would otherwise occupy, that of “business-oriented political outsider.” He is far, far more well-known from his long self-promoting stint in the public eye, and he is therefore a magnet for the protest voters on the right. Supporting Trump is a twofer for anyone who’s angry at the establishment: he is not a GOP establishment member and he also gets the goat of those who are.
Trump (and the publicity in the MSM in reaction to him) has also managed to focus on illegal immigration, a topic that makes many Americans particularly furious and frustrated. That is probably the source of a great deal of his support, because he is one of the few people who are finally reflecting the feelings of much of America, when few on either side of the aisle seem ready to do so.
Is Trump sincere? I don’t happen to think so. I happen to think his main motive is narcissism and hearing the sweet sound of his own voice amplified and repeated. But others disagree, or they don’t care if he is or isn’t sincere. They like to hear him stick it to the Republicans who have played along with illegal immigration (as well as increases in legal immigration) all this time in order to placate their big business donors. Trump may be a big business guy himself, but he doesn’t depend on donors’ money in order to run and that gives him a certain amount of rhetorical freedom.
Lost and found: a piece of Flight 370?
After all the false leads in the year and a third since Malaysian Flight 370 vanished, we now have a real possibility that a piece of it has washed ashore, a sort of cryptic message in a bottle that may have drifted thousands of miles from wherever the plane’s gravesite—and that of its 227 passengers and 12 crew—lies.
Unofficial reports are that the piece is indeed from a Boeing 777, the type of plane involved in the disappearance, and that there are no other 777s that are unaccounted for. Experts are being dispatched even as we speak to identify it further and more exactly, through a number that was found on it which might be some sort of maintenance number but is neither a serial nor a registration number. The item appears from photos to be similar to a plane part known as a flaperon, which “is a lightweight part of an aircraft wing that helps control the plane’s movement. It is lightweight and has sealed chambers, making it buoyant.”
The buoyancy would explain a lot about how it ended up on the island. Notice that the place it was found is named Saint-Andre de la Reunion Island, otherwise known as Reunion Island—aptly named for the site of a plane’s re-entry from the land of the unknown into the realm of human awareness.
We can only hope it’s from Flight 370, because the mystery has been excruciating for the families of the passengers and crew. Chinese people made the bulk of the plane’s passengers, and many of their families don’t want the debris to be from Flight 370, or are at best ambivalent about it, which is completely understandable. What a horrific experience they’ve undergone, and what a wrenching series of downs and ups and downs:
On Thursday, several families said they still believe, against the odds, that the missing passengers are out there, or that this is another false alarm. To believe otherwise is to accept the worst.
They called on the Chinese press to stop printing “hearsay,” and said they were not ready to accept that the wreckage found on Reunion may be a piece of the missing plane…
They have spent the last year locked in Kafkaesque nightmare: cloistered in a hotel for weeks waiting for news, told not to talk to the media, fed false information, and when they made too much noise, reportedly beaten by Chinese police.
Absent verifiable facts, the rumor mill went wild. Some still believe that the plane was intercepted, perhaps by Islamic extremists or the CIA, and that their relatives could alive, waiting to be rescued.
“Closure” is a very overused word, but if ever people needed it, it would be the families of Flight 370.
It had been predicted that if the wreckage were to be found, it would probably be in eastern Africa or nearby because of the way tides work in the Indian Ocean. Reunion is somewhat east of Madagascar, which would place it in the expected area—an area that’s quite large but still circumscribed. Unfortunately, however, even if the debris is from the plane and it confirms a crash, that doesn’t help to point towards a more precise answer to the question of where the rest of the wreckage might be found or even where to search for it.
A suitcase also found on the beach at Reunion has been turned over to authorities, but it could be a false lead because there is nothing to tie it to Flight 370 so far. Reunion is no desert island, either; it is a resort and sugar-raising area with 800,000 residents, so a suitcase could have come from many other sources.
This article indicates that, if it is determined that the flaperon is from the missing plane, it would put an end to the conspiracy theories about its disappearance. I disagree. Those who believe in conspiracy theories tend to be resistant to contrary evidence that would seem convincing to non-conspiracy-theorists. For example, I can readily imagine that if this plane part is declared to have been from a 777 and even from the doomed flight, many of those who believe in a conspiracy will just reply that it was planted or fabricated by lying authorities in a further coverup.