Are We Boiling Frogs?

Home > Other > Are We Boiling Frogs? > Page 5
Are We Boiling Frogs? Page 5

by Home home


  the rest of us but are unable to understand basic, logical

  principles.

  The first written reference to this may have been offered

  in the 1870s in the Journal of Mental Science vol 16.[12]

  “The theory of Dr Sankey as to the manner

  36

  A Dangerous Ideology

  in which these injuries to the chest occurred

  in asylums deserved our careful attention. It

  was at least more plausible that the

  conspiracy theory of Mr Charles Beade”

  This infers ‘conspiracy theory’ is synonymous with

  implausibility, though the connection is not explicit. In fact,

  the term was still being used in closer keeping with the legal

  definition throughout the first half of the 20th Century. After

  the Second World War, we find increasing pejorative use of

  'conspiracy theory' to describe a form of ill-informed

  thinking.

  The philosopher Karl Popper alluded to this in his 1945

  political work 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'. Popper

  was essentially criticising historicism. He stated that

  historical events were vulnerable to misinterpretation by

  those who were too eager to see a conspiracy behind them.

  He argued this was because historians suffered from

  cognitive dissonance (which Shermer later expanded upon)

  and rejected the possibility of random, chaotic events

  influencing history, preferring conspiratorial explanations.

  Usually because they were better stories.

  Even Poppers definition doesn't fully describe the modern

  use of 'conspiracy theory.' As previously mentioned, Richard

  Hofstadter outlined many of the arguments used to

  repudiate the ideas of modern conspiracy theorists in 1964,

  but he did not use the term himself.

  In 1967 the CIA released a briefing paper to their staff

  advising them on a set of techniques they could employ to

  challenge, or side-line, anyone who questioned the Warren

  Commission’s Report into the investigation of the Kennedy

  assassination. This document came to light following a 1976

  Freedom of Information request from the New York Times. It

  was called CIA Document 1035-960 ‘Countering Criticism of

  the Warren Report.'[13]

  This is arguably the first time we saw the combination of

  Hofstadter's view of the “paranoid” as “a militant” with

  Poppers “conspiracy theory of society” to produce our modern

  interpretation.

  37

  A Dangerous Ideology

  The document states:

  “Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown

  suspicion on our organization, for example

  by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald

  worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to

  provide material countering and discrediting

  the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as

  to inhibit the circulation of such claims in

  other countries.”

  This document is like 'manna from heaven' for our

  conspiracy types. “Look! See, we told you so,” they declare,

  “this proves there's a global conspiracy to shut us up.”

  This is the problem with many conspiracy theorists. They

  simply assert statements as if they are irrefutable, pouncing

  on any evidence that may support their arguments while

  failing to acknowledge alternative, equally plausible

  explanations.

  This document does appear to be primary evidence that the

  derogatory use of the phrase was first, clearly outlined by, of

  all people, the CIA. However, it certainly is not proof of

  anything, other than the CIA’s annoyance with the

  conspiracy theorists. Just because they first coined the

  modern connotation and common response, it doesn't mean

  the rest of society picked it up from them. Causation cannot

  be determined from this alone. Especially given that people

  were referencing conspiracy theory as far back as 1871.

  Nonetheless, the document then goes on to recommend

  techniques to discredit conspiracy theories. These included

  employing “propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the

  attacks of the critics”, to avoid “discussion of the

  assassination,” the use of “friendly elite contacts (especially

  politicians and editors)” to publicly state “the charges of the

  critics are without serious foundation” and so on.

  In this document the CIA advanced a number of specific

  tactics to undermine the conspiracy theorists. These

  included:

  1. Refute any evidence offered and cite only official reports

  38

  A Dangerous Ideology

  stating 'no new evidence has emerged.'

  2. Dismiss contradictory eyewitness statements and focus

  upon the existing, primary, official evidence such as

  ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence.

  3. Suggest that large scale conspiracies are impossible to

  cover up in a huge, open and free democracy.

  4. Accuse the conspiracy theorists of having an intellectual

  superiority

  complex.

  5. Suggest that theorists refuse to acknowledge their own

  errors.

  6. Refute any suggestion of witness assassinations by

  pointing out they were all deaths by natural causes.

  7. Question the quality of conspiracy research and point out

  that ours is better.

  In part these seem reasonable, but do hint at the personal

  attacks conspiracy theorists say are used to illogically

  discredit their arguments. For them this is the 'smoking gun'

  that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, the CIA

  reinterpreted the term 'conspiracy theorist' to undermine

  them. Regardless of what proof they offer.

  They say it is simply a propaganda technique designed to

  promote the idea, among the wider population, that

  conspiracists are clueless idiots. Moreover, this was done to

  ensure the public dismissed any evidence they offered

  without ever looking at it. They frequently point to this

  document whenever they identify these techniques

  apparently being used against them today.

  If we are going to approach this subject objectively we have

  to concede that 'Document 1035-960' does suggest this

  possibility. Similarly, if the conspiracy theorists are going to

  claim the same, they should acknowledge that it could

  equally be a sensible response by an establishment that was

  justified in believing nonsensical, JFK conspiracy theories

  presented a genuine threat to social stability. It is interesting

  evidence but it is far from the smoking gun claimed.

  39

  A Dangerous Ideology

  The problem for anyone trying to understand the conspiracy

  theory phenomenon is that the debate has devolved into little

  more than an adversarial slanging match. Some conspiracy

  theorists have their own dogmatic beliefs, as do the rest of

  us. We stand looking at each other across the divide hurling

  insults and ad hominem attacks. To the majority they are

  'conspiratards' and, for this significant minority, we are

  'sheeple.' This is not going to lead to any
thing other than a

  failure to communicate and none of us are likely to learn

  anything from it.

  If we were discussing football it wouldn't matter, but no one

  can deny the serious implications suggested by this debate.

  Especially as we consider the ongoing war on terror and

  potential global conflict with Russia, China and Iran. It

  potentially concerns each and every one of us.

  Unless both sides look at the evidence, none of us have any

  chance of resolving this issue. If the academics and

  politicians are right, then the so called conspiracy theorists

  represent a huge number of people who feel completely

  excluded from society and are creating a potentially

  dangerous mythology as a result.

  History teaches us this rarely ends well.

  However, if there is any truth at all to the conspiracy

  theorists claims, particularly with regard to the war on terror

  and the events that supposedly compelled it, our children

  will not thank us for ignoring the people who were trying to

  alert us all to the danger while we did nothing. So perhaps

  we should tentatively consider the modern definition of

  'conspiracy theorist' preferred by those who are labelled with

  it.

  ************************

  Conspiracy theorist: Nothing more than a

  derogatory title used to dismiss a critical

  thinker.

  ************************

  40

  A Dangerous Ideology

  Chapter 3

  Are Conspiracy Theorists Extremists?

  The crimes suggested by 'conspiracy theorists,' that

  9/11 and 7/7 were sponsored terrorist attacks; that hidden

  elements within the U.S administration and UK government

  colluded to facilitate these atrocities and these malevolent

  forces were willing to murder their own citizens to achieve

  their own political objectives, is so far beyond accepted social

  norms it appears to be nothing short of complete lunacy.

  Most consider this an 'extreme' view, but does it therefore

  imply those who hold it are 'extremists?' What does it mean

  to be an extremist and how is extremism defined?

  We have already discussed the empirical evidence which

  shows the people who maintain this opinion are not an

  insignificant minority. Nor are these deeply held, anti-

  establishment views anything new. What is new, is the

  potential to spread these ideas across wider society with

  relative ease.

  Whether the perceived growth in conspiracy theory is

  41

  A Dangerous Ideology

  actually happening is debatable. Some say the Internet, and

  social media in particular, has led to a proliferation of

  conspiratorial thinking. However, there is research which

  indicates this isn't necessarily the case. For example, by

  studying readers’ letters, published by the New York times

  between 1897 and 2010, analysis suggests levels of disbelief

  in government narratives have remained fairly constant.[14]

  Other studies suggest the social media effect, far from

  broadening peoples perspectives and introducing them to

  new ideas, has resulted in the creation of 'echo chambers.'

  Social media users tend to seek out those they already agree

  with. They form 'information silos' with likeminded

  individuals, who collectively resist counter narratives and

  reject any evidence which undermines the groups

  predetermined belief system.

  The Internet has increased people’s awareness of the

  existence of conspiracy theories. However, the evidence

  doesn't demonstrate this has resulted in them becoming

  more widely accepted.

  If anything, social media appears to be making people less

  willing to entertain new concepts or explore previously

  unknown evidence. Perhaps the real concern should be that

  our online lives are deepening divisions in society and

  eroding our ability to reasonably debate one another.[15]

  What can be said is governments are unwilling to take the

  risk. They are evidently determined to draw parallels

  between 'conspiracy theory', extremism and even terrorism.

  They are racing ahead with legislation designed to stop the

  possible spread of this dangerous ideology.

  Germany have passed the 'Network Enforcement Law' which

  will instantly fine social media organisations up to €50M if

  they don't remove information the German government

  doesn't approve of; President Emmanuel Macron of France

  has announced new judicial powers to combat 'fake news'

  which will enable judges to block any content the French

  state doesn't like; in the U.S. amidst a raft of anti-extremism

  legislation, we see the Countering Foreign Propaganda Act

  and Foreign Entities Reform Act aimed at foreign media

  organisations, such as Russia Today, who aren't reporting

  42

  A Dangerous Ideology

  the news the way the U.S. state want it to be reported;

  Australia and the European Union have introduced stringent

  copyright laws which will effectively block independent

  content creators from sharing mainstream media stories,

  heavily curtailing their ability to critique the news for their

  followers.

  Similarly in Brazil, India, Poland, Italy, the Czech Republic

  and many other countries, the program to shut down the

  free exchange of information across the Internet is well

  underway.

  We are told these new laws, which consequently create new

  crimes, are for our protection. Terrorist cells and dangerous

  hate preachers are using mass social media platforms to

  coordinate their activity, brainwash new recruits and

  undermine the fabric of our society with their toxic dogma.

  Oppressive states, who hate our way of life, such as Russia,

  Iran and China, are abusing our Internet freedoms to cause

  uncertainty and chaos among the population. Using sock

  puppet accounts and state propaganda outlets, they spread

  fake news like a virus infecting our democratic systems.

  The problem is, legislation supposedly designed to stop

  disaffected teenagers from becoming terrorists, appears to

  have other, much broader consequences. Compelled by

  governments to 'take down' extremist content, the social

  media giants are doing far more than just removing ISIS

  recruitment videos.

  Huge numbers of so called 'alternative media' sites have seen

  their channels banned, feeds withheld from subscribers and

  pages closed. They've had their access to funding removed,

  advertising revenues withdrawn and can't share their

  content, even to their own followers.

  Whether by design or not, the effect has been to stop people

  sharing book discussions online. Not people who advocate

  hate or promote violence, just people who ask questions.

  People who don't believe the government, as if that were

  something new. Shock jocks, amateur sleuths, retired

  professors, former politicians, bloggers, independent

  journalists and former intelligence analysts appear to be the


  43

  A Dangerous Ideology

  'non-violent extremists' who are being censored.

  It seems telling, that while the political class uses the

  questionable ‘fake news’ meme to protect the ‘independence’

  of the media they are simultaneously suppressing all media

  that is truly independent. Clearly, when they say

  ‘independent media,’ what they mean is mainstream media.

  Media owned by billionaire oligarchs, with close ties to the

  state, who are all staunchly supportive of establishment

  narratives.

  The genuine independent media, borne from the current

  citizen freedoms afforded by the Internet, is constantly under

  attack. Unlike the mainstream media, it is has a strong anti-

  establishment vein running through it. While some

  purveyors of ‘alternative media’ offer fairly poor, inaccurate

  news commentary, it is certainly no worse than the trash

  journalism we often find in the lower quality mainstream

  media.

  The best ‘alternative media’ outlets, such as the Corbett

  Report, Tragedy and Hope, 21st Century Wire, The UK

  Column, The OffGuardian and many others, offer a depth of

  analysis almost entirely absent from the MSM. Not only do

  they use investigative journalism, something the MSM no

  longer seem capable of, they provide links to their

  information sources. They encourage readers to consider the

  evidence themselves. They are also widely accused of being

  ‘conspiracy theorists.’

  This is in stark contrast to the mainstream media. They

  simply report their news and insist you believe it. Citation of

  primary evidence is rare, and the reporting always reflects

  the political standpoint of the editorial team and, usually,

  the owners.

  Perhaps the state has legitimate reason for concern. There

  will undoubtedly be some 'extremists' among the millions

  who believe in one conspiracy theory or another. Just as

  there are in any political interest group. However, with

  regard to those who question 9/11 and 7/7, the view is

  overwhelmingly that we are being misled into supporting

  unnecessary wars of conquest. It is essentially an anti-war

  movement.

  44

  A Dangerous Ideology

  It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that some deranged

  individuals may take it upon themselves to use violence, in a

  pointless attempt to 'overthrow the government.'

 

‹ Prev