From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: CFR
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:54:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.060839.2467@news.ysu.edu> ad626@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>Ted, your attempts at reason would be funny if they weren't so pathetic.
>What evidence would I accept? What evidence have you presented? If  you
>could show me covincing indications that the CFR membership as published
>is false, that the organizational positions attributed to these individuals 
>in various reference works are not the ones they actually hold, that they 
>do not use the ideas presented by various speakers at CFR events as a 
>conceptual basis for their decision making, that they don't network with
>one another and that that they don't talk about politics, economics or
>current events at CFR functions, then I might consider the possibility
>that your stance had some merit. Good luck.

I never disputed a single one of these contentions.  I merely noted
that it does not follow inextricably from any or all of these that the
CFR is trying to achieve World Domination, nor is there *any* evidence
that this is their goal.

>Your comparison with a golf club reaches new heights. May I simply remind
>you that unlike a golf club, the AVOWED PURPOSE of the CFR is to discuss 
>"policy". You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that. Also, the practice
>of requiring members not to reveal what is discussed at sessions seems to
>indicate something a little heavier than the casual social outing. 

Except that there's a much more plausible and likely reason for this
secrecy than World Conquest.  I served in student government one year.
Low-key position, small campus, not a big deal, right?  Except I found
that every time I opened my mouth in front of a group of people, I
offended someone.  People would write angry letters to the paper saying
how someone from the student government had said such-and-such.  After
enough of this, I started watching what I would say.  Let me tell you,
it's a stressful thing to talk politician-speech.  It's pretty tiring
to do so, and I certainly was under nowhere near the magnifying glass
that CFR members are.  Just like a politician may prefer to say things
"off the record" to a reporter, I don't at all find it implausible that
someone might want to join a club to debate and argue things, listen to
speakers, things like that, without having to worry whether the stupid
thing they said at the spur of the moment would be plastered on the front
page of the paper the next day.

Another possibility for the requirement of secrecy is simple intellectual
property protection.  Investors' newsletters require subscribers to promise
not to reveal what was revealed.  So do Bar Review and SAT-Prep classes.
But I don't think Stanley Kaplan is trying to take over the world, either.

Is "secrecy" your only evidence for a massive conspiracy?  That's a
pretty impressive record -- how long has the CFR been around?  How big
and immense is their conspiracy?  This would not only be the biggest
conspiracy in history, it would be, by several orders of magnitude,
more successful in squelching leaks than any other in history.

The "Skull & Bones" society is "secret," also, but we know just about
everything that goes on in there.  That all that exists about CFR is
unfounded speculation is good reason to believe that the speculation
is groundless.  It's impossible to keep something so big so secret.

>Also, you are missing the point if you think I brought up the fact that 
>much of what the CFR does is publically known as EVIDENCE of their
>conspiratorial nature. Their conspiratorial nature is obvious "prima
>facie" simply by combining the names on the membership list with the
>avowed purpose of the organization. 

That's not the prima facie definition of a conspiracy.  Nor is there
any proof that the "avowed purpose" is anything more than the claimed
"discuss policy."

>My pointing out how much of this
>stuff occurs at least semi-openly was descriptive, not evidentiary.
>For precedents see Poe's "The Purloined Letter". You may also be 
>interested in H.G. Wells's "The Open Conspiracy", Marylin Ferguson's
>"The Aquarian Conspiracy" or any historical material on the Fabian 
>Society, which also practiced semi-public conspiratorial methods.

And you may want to read Popper on falsifiability, or some stuff on
Occam's Razor.

Note that Poe and Wells were writing fiction, which is what most of
these claims against the CFR are.

>On the other hand, perhaps when defending 
>consistently incorrect positions, ignorance is actually an asset. 
>It is a good way to keep from getting confused by the facts.

As indeed you seem to be doing.  Your posts are remarkably fact-free.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637