There was a time, I’ll admit, when I thought that so-called conspiracy theories were quixotic, mildly interesting, and largely benign. Not any more.
It’s one thing poking around the dark shadows of the Internet, and another reaping the consequences of what we sow. Don’t get me wrong, of course, there are nefarious entities that lurk in odd places, official accounts that are questionable, and states and corporations that have sought to conceal truths from the rest of us. That’s how power works. We all know that. The problem now, however, is that conspiracy theories are circulating on such a vast scale that they make any attempt at understanding what’s actually going on out there almost impossible.
But something more alarming is happening. These theories are being adopted holus-bolus, often with not a shred of evidence, across vast swathes of the world’s population. President Trump, Breitbart, QAnon, Newscorp Ltd, and other suspect sources have helped push conspiracy theories front and centre into the world of political discourse. The most concerning thing is that those who believe they are progressive myth busters and truth-tellers now often occupy the same epistemic terrain as demagogues, religious fascists, and violent right-wing militia.
President Trump is the greatest Twitter-obsessed conspiracy theorist of all, evoking his evangelist-inspired historical struggle against the “deep state” while being utterly enmeshed in it. Trump is, in fact, part of the surface state scamming millions of dollars in plain sight. More than 70 million US citizens recently voted for someone whose rise to power turned on serial lying, backslapping the far-right, and peddling countless knee-jerk theories. It’s a deliberate strategy, cooked up by Steve Bannon, designed to confuse, befuddle and distract attention from the fibber-in-chief. It worked – for a while.
Easy access to the Internet has exposed millions to this nonsense. And they’ve lapped it up. The bigger the lie, as Goebbels reminded us, the more likely the powerful will get away with things. So, elections are rigged, news is fake, and there are “alternative facts”. This is postmodernism on steroids, heavily infused with narcissism and political opportunism.
Have I actually delved into any of these conspiracy theories? You bet. From time to time I venture down various rabbit holes with enthusiastic curiosity, only to be disappointed and perplexed at how anyone can take this stuff seriously. I take time to read the fact-checkers who usually upend the latest drivel. I’ve inquired into Pizzagate, assertions that Bill Gates is behind the pandemic, and that Fauci worked with the Chinese to develop a lethal virus in a Wuhan laboratory. I’ve checked this stuff out. It doesn’t stack up. (I can hear the dissenting screams from here!)
The proposition that the COVID-19 is a myth, or that masks are an organised attempt to curtail our freedoms, or that Covid-19 is only a flu has undoubtedly cost tens of thousands of lives. Yet despite not standing up to scrutiny, the folk who peddle this stuff will insist that you are ignorant, complicit, or have somehow missed the glaring truth. You’re a sucker and loser. They do so even though most conspiracy theories are usually based on circumstantial ‘evidence’, unanswerable questions, circular reasoning, and the joining of spurious dots. None of this would ever pass the test of falsifiability, and reason and rationality – those quaint modernist aspirations – don’t get a look in. And science? Well, it’s all corrupt, isn’t it?
I was appalled when in 2016 a gaggle of folk in my local town in NSW cheered the news that Trump had been elected. They said that at least he wouldn’t start wars, that he was taking on the banksters, and wasn’t in the pay of Wall Street. What codswallop! Our Donald has massively expanded ‘defence’ spending (at the same time as gutting social programs), sealed huge ‘defence’ deals with some of the most violent regimes on Earth, and scrapped environmental regulations, and exited the Paris Agreement in a war against the climate. He has also stoked huge divisions in his backyard, cosied up to dictators (none of whom are peaceniks), and alienated many of America’s former allies. And as for Trump taking on the banksters – just take a look at who’s guiding his economic policies, and see his list of donors (although yes, Wall Street gave more money to the Biden campaign).
The other day, many of the same folk in my home town who cheered on Trump four years ago, ran a public event – Politics in the Pub – that was replete with conspiracy theorising (5G, anti-vax, Bill Gates, etc.). That a public platform has been used to peddle such theories is disappointing – although not entirely unexpected – it shows the lengths to which some folk will go to get their views across. Apparently, quite a few of those who attended the event had no idea that the evening was in fact a con fest. Equally concerning, is the fact that the big issues that require the rapid mobilisation of progressive justice movements – inequality, climate change, ecological destruction, the erosion of democracy, the use of cruelty as policy – are being obscured. But worse, conspiracy thinking coheres with some of the most reactionary elements in our society.
These theories may seem like a pitch for freedom and the truth, but end up dazed and confused in the world of smoke and mirrors. It is undoubtedly the case that conspiracy thinking can offer solace to those seeking easy answers to complex problems, or who no longer trust democratic institutions or the press. Yet there are those too who indulge this stuff in a narcissistic appropriation of what is claimed as insider knowledge. To take on conspiracy theorists is like trying to grab soap off the shower floor. Assertions can be disproved, only for new ones to pop up like mushrooms on a dank morning.
Philosophiser Quassim Cassam says that contesting such thinking is an unrewarding business and that one is better simply pointing to the company theorists keep. Alternatively, simply listening to why people believe what they do may take us to the ultimate source of this claimed knowledge. I’ve also heard ii said that conspiracy theorists are seeking some sort of connection in an otherwise fragmented world, and that hooking up with like-minded others may provide that long-desired sense of belonging. This may indeed be the case, although there is also every chance that this may give rise to poisonous solidarities that blame the blameless for one’s problems.
In a “post truth” world we have to remain ever vigilant around such thinking, and we need to identify whose interests are actually being served. We need to apply the most basic evidentiary rules if we are to make sense of this fantasy fetish. As Noam Chomsky points out, we need to engage in “intellectual self-defence” and make plain how aberrant thinking can end up reinforcing rather than dismantling brute power. Yes, we need to doubt what we are told. But as English poet John Dunne urged long ago:
“Doubt wisely; in strange way
To stand inquiring right, is not to stray;
To sleep, or run wrong, is.”
Adjunct Professor, School of Health Sciences and Social Work,
Griffith University (Gold Coast Campus).
Adjunct Professor, Southern Cross University, Faculty of Business, Law and Arts.
Comments
23 responses to “Conspiracy Theories – The Big Con”
The dirtiest conspiracy theory of our times was Russiagate, concocted and promoted by the FBI, the Democrat National Committee and the mainstream media. It was a hoax. They were telling a big lie and they knew it.
OMG, what has happened to the world?
On one end of the extreme here (P&I) we have the China Apologists and at the other end we have conspiracy theorists. This is too much for my mind.
WE KNOW….
The “conspiracy theory” label is used by both the pretender and those pretended.
The pretender comes from some mad ideology, salvation of status or position, simple ámorality and avarice or all those things.
Those pretended have a more complex thought process…from dilettante ignorance, the self assessment and comfort of superiority over the labelled conspiracy theorist .. and a deep seated fear of embarrassment that they have been taken for a ride and Stockholm Syndrome is the safe place.
I say you are just as dead finding the truth as you are finding ways to deny it.
Hiding in fear means “they” .. the real conspirators; will keep doing their murderous deeds, flipping you the bird and saying, ‘what are you going to do about it numpty?’
One of the contingencies of their sacrificial code, is wanting you to know they did it.
That contingency too is a generator of fear.
What is the best way to debunk a conspiracy theory? Call it a conspiracy theory!
They have a purpose and one such purpose is to direct people into multiple directions!
Conspiracy as a label is a stigma and has a chilling effect on people and the label subtly has the power to shut down inquiring minds and with them any inconvenient conversations.
This expression is used liberally by the establishment and by the media, it’s a lazy way of pigeonholing the things that are perhaps too uncomfortable to believe or don’t fit a prescribed narrative or a personal worldview.
But where did the term come from and how does this catch-all phrase affect independent thinkers, international debate and the media today. In that we We must start by looking at what it is used for is it a smear used to define a particular notion or inquiry.
When one looks at the archive of the New York Times, Time magazine, in the Washington Post that the phrase conspiracy theory wasn’t used much until 1967.
What happened was the CIA sent a memo to all station Chiefs abroad in the early part of 1967. The occasion for this memo was the fact that a number of books had come out most notably
‘Rushed to Judgmen’t by mark Lane demonstrating very convincingly that the Warren Commission report effect that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that report was absurd; that that whole narrative was full of holes and that we needed a new Commission.
In response to that crisis of confidence in this august body that had put out this report
The CIA basically kick-started a propaganda drive to tar these authors as conspiracy theorists.
The memo even went into what we would call today talking points specific arguments that these hacks should use on behalf of the agency basically so that people would not bother to take the critics seriously.
For example oh well if there were a conspiracy somebody would have talked by now arguments like that.
Ad hominem attacks which it impugns the motives of the critics, it accused them of having some connection to a Soviet Union, it accuses them of having a financial interest in what they were doing, it accused them of a kind of delusional commitment to a particular theory.
These are arguments that are still used to this day to marginalize people who raise questions about staggeringly long list of state conspiracies; the JFK and RFK and Martin King assassinations, 9/11 certainly but also Iran-Contra and the downing of flight TWA flight 800.
Thunder on the mountain
Heavy as can be
Mean old twister playing down on me
All the ladies in Washington are scrambling to get out of town
Looks like something bad’s gunná happen
Better roll your airplane down:
Thunder On The Mountain ….Bob Dylan.
Poor Bob and poor Cohen. They can’t be conspiracy theorists like you and I…They might get Joan Collinsed. ;-p
Welcome to democracy! The rule of the ignorant over the gullible. What makes society work is the rule of demophilic expertise (socialism).
In other words, while real conspiracies do exist, Mr Richard Hill can authoritatively certify that all of those popularly circulating (9/11, Covid-19, etc and other strawmen included) have no basis in fact, having personally investigated them all in depth and found them to be without any merit. We can all now rest assured that his view is correct and we can safely redirect our unfounded cynicism and overwrought critical faculties to the real conspiracies he might one day deign to direct our attention to.
Or, in other words, my conspiracy theory is more true than yours.
Maybe Richard Hill, is the antithesis of the conspiracy theorist, Richard D. Hall from Rich Planet TV?
O maybe not….best check the evidence.
Professor Hill might read, “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” By Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D. and use his Arts and Social Science expertise to debunk the physics as well as the empirical evidence there??
His tenure would compromised though if he were to agree with someone like Dr. Woods, who is an expert in her field.
Maybe Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth ae911truth.org and in particular the University of Fairbanks Alaska’s study on the Building 7 collapse which completely refutes the NIST account and points to simultaneous spontaneous failure of 93 columns across 5 floors of the building.
Architects and Engineers (sic.) are a stalking horse for the real perpetrators…
A physics dilettantes attractive distraction, from: The extant videos of an upward and outward cascade of huge, molecular disassociating elements of the buildings.
What the eyes saw was dismissed by the media theatrics and narratives.
The phenomena is explained here, “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” By Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D.
Don’t be scared .. The PERPS want you to know how they did it.
For then you have joined me in the ranks of the damned:
Yes, of course.
No need as that’s been debunked already.
You please yourself.
The inquisitive will do the same.
“It’s a deliberate strategy, … designed to
confuse, befuddle and distract attention from the fibber-in-chief. It
worked – for a while.”
…except that Abrahamic religions are still powerful promulgators of unsubstantiated myth and falsehoods for the sole purpose of maintaining “the Faith”.
We need to be reminded as to how the term “Conspiracy Theory” entered popular usage. And this is not the “dictionary-definition”.
1. Someone (either a real person or a corporation) cooks up something incredibly vile and malignant that they intend to implement – and to hell with any opposition thereto which they intend to destroy anyway.
2. That “thing” – usually a strategy to impose malignant fascist terrorism (or upwards wealth-transfer) on the bottom 95% of the population, that only the top 5% really supports.
3. They just know that this bottom 95% will rise in holy revolt against it, and overthrow it forever.
4. They then place it in full public view to attract the anticipated ire of that bottom 95%.
5. In the face of that ire, they then label it a “Conspiracy Theory” which (supposedly) nobody in their right mind would dare to cook up.
6. That bottom 95% , lulled into a false sense of relief then hopefully goes back to sleep while they slowly, piece-by-piece implement it.
7. If anyone protests at the piecemeal implementation of it, they are contemptuously dismissed as a “Conspiracy-Theorist”.
So rose the terminology.
Its contemporary application is the multi-faceted, Democrat-engineered fraud against Trump in the 2020 US Elections. Which the Democrats label as a “Conspiracy Theory”. In this Election, if the process was truly “fair and free”, Trump would have easily won the Electoral College by over 400 votes (270 are needed to win).
Mary you have provided a perfect example of what Richard highlighted. Your argument has no basis in fact. If I asked you to provide evidence you wouldn’t be able to because you get your information from YouTube videos and propaganda. You don’t realise that you are part of a psych ops.
So where is Richard Halls’ evidence?
And if such evidence were then deposed on youtube .. would it be bullshit?
While I have no debate with your process, the original source of “Conspiracy Theory” as a pejorative term was in fact the CIA’s coining of it to disparage and belittle narratives critical of the Warren Commission’s findings concerning the JFK assassination. Specifically, that certain US security state institutions were themselves responsible for conspiring to murder their own elected leader.
Surprise, surprise, I agree with you re its surfacing in the American Political Lexicon,
8 . Inscribe the legal means for dirty deeds.. Into the Smith Mundt Modernisation Act.
So now conspiracy is kosher: