Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 5
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.'