A note to birthers

Notwithstanding my repeated, hard-as-nails statements that not only am I not interested in indulging in speculative theories about Obama’s real genesis, but that I think such indulgence is deeply harmful to the cause of getting at the truth and indeed serves to discredit all those who want to get at the truth, readers—intelligent readers—keep sending me comments rank with such speculation. It’s an illustration of an aspect of human psychology which I’ve often remarked on: people are interested in what they’re interested in, and if someone else says that he is not interested in it, thinks it’s a distraction from more important things, and doesn’t want to discuss it, it’s not going to change the fact that they’re interested in it and want to discuss it.

In any case, though I have little hope that my words will get the speculative theorists to stop sending me their theories, I say again: you are wasting your time. I’m not going to post them.

- end of initial entry -

January 26

Dean Ericson writes:

“In any case, though I have little hope that my words will get the speculative theorists to stop sending me their theories, I say again: you are wasting your time. I’m not going to post them.”

Thanks, we needed that. The imagination does have a tendency to start spinning out lurid possibilities to explain the odd circumstances of Obama’s birth and his efforts to conceal … something. In this dismal swamp you’d best stay on the hard ground of what you know, and what you know you don’t know, or you run the risk of raving around like a barking conspiracy loon. We can’t have that at VFR. Even though there’s the most salacious speculation that Grandpa Stanley is the actual father, and he does look exactly like Obama, and then, even more amazing is that—[WHACK!!]

Ouch. Umm, thanks, I needed that.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 25, 2011 09:37 PM | Send