The spectre of anti-conspiracy theory haunts our free-speech platforms: for example Spiked, which contains a number of articles like The rise of “acceptable” Conspiracy Theories, QAnon, A threat to democracy and Rationality, Trump’s “fake” Covid Crisis, Another liberal Conspiracy Theory, etc. even on lockdownsceptics.org there is a polite injunction asking members to avoid “conspiracy theories,” and obviously our mainstream media, which is not a free-speech platform.
To be fair, on a free-speech platform I can’t object to anyone debunking so-called “conspiracy theory.” But I’m not altogether convinced by this viewpoint. What is “conspiracy theory” anyway? A casual examination of this expression reveals it to be a derogative with its origins seemingly in the CIA following the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963, intended to delegitimise anyone who questions a mainstream narrative. My own view is that it is increasingly, a redundant expression. Let’s take an example or two. Suppose the term “conspiracy theory” to mean creating a theory then selecting, adjusting, or inventing data to fit the theory. If this is so, it renders “climate change” a de facto conspiracy theory. There is so much evidence of manipulation of data to support this narrative that I will not weary the reader with it here. Let’s call this out for what it is: dishonest or lazy journalism. Yet most of the world’s public are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that “climate change” is a real existential threat.
It can be fun to engage with this sort of topic. I know from experience that if I ask someone “who killed JFK?” the answer I’m least likely to receive is “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Similarly, asking “How did Princess Diana die?” is unlikely to elicit the answer, “In a road accident,” and a discussion of Dr David Kelly and weapons of mass destruction will almost certainly include allegations of a cover-up. The odd thing is that most people originally seem to have believed that there were in fact, weapons of mass destruction and that Diana died in an accident. They’ve simply altered their beliefs as questions were asked later. It is the absence of evidence for or against something that can be just as compelling as its presence. When dealing with alternative explanations for world events, I personally can’t engage much with the idea, for example that the Moon landing was fabricated. I can’t find enough compelling evidence for it. Then again, I don’t want to believe that and sometimes our acceptance of explanations of world events depend very much on our perceptions and our world-view.
There is only one solution to this: investigation. Looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads. Hanging on to the “conspiracy theory” label impedes real investigation and it’s time we got rid of it.
Which brings me to current events. Here we need to use first principles and look at what is actually happening, not what we think is happening, The only tangible outcomes of current events are that our freedoms, both political and existential, have been, almost overnight, cancelled. In the face of censorship, suspension of parliamentary democracy, forced face-mask wearing, endless lockdowns, the overhanging shadow of a military presence on British streets, are we really expected to believe all that nice Mr. Johnson wants to do is protect us all from that nasty virus? Questions need to be asked. Investigative journalism must ask those questions more and more. It’s easy, too easy, to use anti-conspiracy theory. Why are studies showing that face-masks don’t work being removed from the internet? Conspiracy theory. Klaus Schwab’s book , the Great Reset? Conspiracy theory. Deborah Cohen’s report that the World Health Organisation altered its face-mask guidance in the face of political lobbying? Conspiracy theory. There is something wrong with the COVID-19 narrative, and we need to investigate it thoroughly. We can no longer pretend, after the predictability of forced face-masks, military involvement, second lockdowns which will almost certainly be extended into next year, that we can trust the state. Further predictions debunked as “conspiracy theory” include bio-immunity passports, forced vaccinations, and forced detention camps. Can we really afford to believe this isn’t going to happen unless we do something to stop it?
There is a problem with this because the alternative thinkers looking at this problem tend to offer solutions which are impracticable, ranging from alternative barter economies to outright revolution, which in Britain, is psychologically and culturally impossible. However,we may as well feel entitled to suggest that possibly, we are not being told the whole truth. The “figures” we are presented with in the mass media to justify the increasingly boundary-less government policies intended to “stop the spread of coronavirus” could have come from anywhere. It’s unclear how they are being generated. Every time I see or hear the acronym “SAGE” in the media I become more and more frightened of this increasingly sinister and Orwellian body. It seems to have no other purpose than recommending lockdowns.
I’m not sure that “conspiracy theory” exists at all. No-one says “I’m a conspiracy theorist.” But too many of us are saying “I’m not a conspiracy theorist but….” And “I don’t advocate civil disobedience but….” then advocating civil disobedience. This is disingenuous and confusing.
Get rid of the “conspiracy theory” label. Investigate and expose. That’s what journalism is about.
Conspiracy Theories often fall apart when subjected to academic rigor because they have little or no place for things happening organically. For example, many conspiracy theories involve the Middle East, it is no coincidence that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is taught as fact in most Middle Eastern countries.
ReplyDeleteOne example is that some believe that the US planned and orchestrated the Arab Spring.
This idea is so easy to dismantle the only difficulty is choosing where to start. Did the US set the fruit seller on fire? Or did they engineer the prolonged harassment by police that led him to set himself on fire? Did the US engineer the outrage on social media, or did perhaps the people themselves feel a sense of outrage and reacted of their own free will?
Had the US planned it, or did they bet wrong? The US supplied military aid to Mubarak's Egypt because Egypt under Mubarak was seen as a source of stability. True, Mubarak was 80+ and led an ossified regime based on an outdated Arab Nationalist Ideology. The Mubarak regime was not delievering prosperity to its people, high youth unemployment, high levels of poverty. But Mubarak upheld the peace treaty with Egypt and he wasn't the Muslim Brotherhood, that was what matters.
Its clear that the US prefers familiar faces no matter how corrupt or inept they are. That is why they supported the Shah of Iran, that is why they supported Mubarak, that is why they continue to support the Saudi Royal Family.
While the familiar faces the US chooses to support are far from ideal, the uncertainty avoidance of US foreign policy weighs heavier. It makes no sense for the US to engineer the so-called Arab Spring, even if they could cause a Tunisian fruit seller to self immolate. If they did do it, who benefits? Certainly not US interests, certainly not the Muslim Brotherhood, certainly not the Arab people.
No conspiracy theories here? None needed Sir.
My problem with Conspiracy Theories are that they are based upon conjecture. The notion is always greed or ambition, or perhaps, pure evil. A friend of mine who is an avid believer in conspiracy theories often reminds me to never underestimate pure evil.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that evil exists, but I don't rule out the high likelihood of things happening organically. In all instances, an organic sequence of events is more likely than a planned one.
For example, many conflicts bubble up from below. The 1975 Lebanese Civil War began after a dispute between Muslim and Christian Fishermen.
The downfall of the Ceaucescus began in Timasora with an attempted eviction of a Hungarian Priest. Despite the oppressed nature of Hungarians, the locals sided with the Priest, and pent up anger over the brutal austerity measures bubbled to the surface. The Ceaucescus were shot 9 days later.
I have heard leftwing people allege that the US orchestrated the downfall of the Ceaucescus. If so this requires the Ceaucescus to willingly cooperate with the US in amassing debt and implementing austerity. Well, Western Banks were happy to lend, the Ceaucescus were happy to borrow. Conspiracy? Not really, just a simple transaction. A transaction that led to debt, led to poverty, led to discontent, led to an uprising, hey presto, overthrow.
Some ask, who benefits? In cases like most of the above, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
If Bush & Cheney orchestrated 911 as some allege, what did they really gain? Did they gain a smooth sailing presidency? Did it help their particular vision for the Republican party? Did it serve US interests?
20 years and several trillion dollars later, what has been gained by the invasion of Afghanistan? Is there a pipeline as many alleged at the time?
For Conspiracy Theories to work, it requires the said people to be either magnificently evil, have Godlike planning precision, have conflicted views about the outcome, I could go on.
Most Conspiracy Theories collapse on their internal contradictions, such as 911, or fall apart as new evidence comes to light, such as JFK.
For uprisings or Pandemics to be planned and orchestrated, yes it is possible, but more evidence is needed. Until then, I eschew the word Conspiracy Theory, I don't label others ideas with it, and I prefer others not to attach it to me. To me there are no Conspiracy Theories, only different arguments.
If Colonel Oliver North had been slightly more careful with information, Iran-Contra would likely be viewed by many today as a Conspiracy Theory.
ReplyDeleteHowever, sufficient evidence made it clear that the CIA were using illicit arms sales to Iran to finance Drug running rebels in Nicaragua, and in turn delivering Crack to South Central LA.
The episode had an almost comical irony to it as Nancy Reagan's best known advocacy as First Lady was to just say No to drugs.
In light of this, to what extent should we rule out other drug motivated foreign policy? Can we rule out that the supply of drugs may have been a factor in policy on Afghanistan?
The solution, as your article makes clear, is to investigate.