Conspiracy Debate – Readers Respond
In issue 231 we ran an Opinion piece questioning to what extent conspiracy theories were real or whether they might be simply someone’s honestly held belief. A belief that was then condemned and denigrated by those who held counter or even just different views. Hadn’t some erstwhile conspiracy theories turned out to be true? Cigarettes DID cause cancer despite the protestations of the tobacco companies. DDT did cause major health problems despite a promotional blitz that insisted “DDT is good for me”. The idea of a Great Reset – including abolishing private property and moving to a digital only currency – IS true and was promoted by the World Economic Forum in 2020, launched by then Prince now King Charles. So, is it possible that one person’s conspiracy theory is simply another’s blue skies thinking? Here two readers of the Hastings Independent respond with their views.
Tin Foil Hatter
JONATHAN ANDREWS
I found Kent Barker’s article about Conspiracy Theorists (issue 231 of HIP) very informative. It is undeniable that people conspire. We conspire every day, often in small ways. It’s human nature. Usually such conspiring is with good intent. But that is not inevitably the case. Where money and power are involved, there is motive for bad intent.
People calling attention to conspiracies that may have ‘bad’ intent get branded ‘conspiracy theorists’ and shunned. So it’s interesting to learn that the term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’, first coined in the late 1800s, was hijacked by the CIA and introduced into the mainstream narrative as a marginalising term. But surely the CIA wouldn’t do that? Surely that’s a ‘Conspiracy Theory’?
Well…following a Freedom of Information request by the New York Times in 1976, a CIA strategy paper Dispatch 1035-960 written in 1967 revealed that the CIA had indeed hijacked the term and promoted a strategy to counter dissenting views by labelling people holding them as ‘Conspiracy Theorists’. This was in response to the growing belief in the US that the government had been involved in the assassination of JFK.
Why shouldn’t people be able to freely discuss whether the assassination of JFK was an ‘inside job’? Surely the discussion of the possibility is permissible? We live in a free and open society, don’t we?
Let’s take another example. How many planes hit the World Trade complex on 9/11? If you answered two, you may be right. Now ask yourself how many towers ‘collapsed’? If you answered two, you are demonstrably wrong. Three towers collapsed that day, the third tower being WTC7, or ‘Building 7’ as it has become known, which was not hit by a plane. The collapse of 3 buildings on 9/11 is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. You can look it up and even watch it on YouTube. For the time being…
Perhaps the collapse of WTC7 was as a result of a fire within the building? But if you watch, it may remind you of a controlled demolition. So perhaps the authorities decided WTC7 was unstable following the collapse of the North and South Towers, and so it was brought down in a controlled demolition a few hours later? But to rig a building of that size for a controlled demolition takes weeks and would never be done whilst a fire raged inside. It also doesn’t explain how the BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 24 minutes before it happened. You read that correctly.
But why? What possible motive could a state have to inflict such an atrocity on its citizens? In 2000, the US think tank, ‘Project for a New American Century’, published a document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. In it, the authors, including Dick Cheney, called for regime change in Iraq but said that such regime change could take a long time: ‘…absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.’ Could it be argued that 9/11 was such an event?
But 9/11 may not have been only about regime change in Iraq. It introduced the oxymoronic concept of a ‘war on terror’, othered an entire religion, and led just six weeks later to the 300-page ‘Patriot Act’ which began the erosion of global movement and freedoms. All of which were readily accepted by the public.
Perhaps it’s time to stop viewing so-called ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ as crazy ‘Tin-Foil Hatters’? As long ago as the nineties, Conspiracy Theorists were warning of the introduction of digital currencies. It looks like they were right. Again.
A Threat to All
Conspiracy theories are a real problem, argues local activist NEIL O’WARNE
It’s very disappointing that you gave a whole page to Kent Barker’s attempt to minimise the damage done by conspiracy theories and turn them instead into a free speech debate.
In the article he cooks up his own plot to dismiss the very idea of the ‘conspiracy theory’ as just a label that is put on poor harmless ‘truth-seekers’ by those in power, to crush their ‘alternative’ views. He completely glosses over the enormous harm done by conspiracy theories and their advocates. In a town like Hastings, where you can hardly lift a pebble on the beach without stumbling over some fictitious conspiracy or other, I think that it is highly irresponsible to encourage these fantasists. It’s important that the people who try to sell ‘alternative facts’ are challenged at every turn. In reality it’s not the powerful, but the rest of us that are threatened. Conspiracy theories are toxic to people, communities and civil society as a whole.
Many people taken in by conspiracies ignore the fact – or possibly don’t even realise – that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are deliberately created to promote right-wing talking points and ideas. They don’t just spontaneously appear from people ‘doing their own research’ but many are workshopped in places like the notorious 4Chan/8Chan chat rooms where QAnon was created and spread on social media via Russian tweet farms – as documented in the Mueller Report.
These conspiracy theories are then pushed into the mainstream through right-wing media companies like Fox News or GB News. The idea of ‘Cultural Marxism’, which has literally never existed except as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, has even travelled so far through the political mainstream that it was used by the Home Secretary Suella Braverman in a speech earlier this year. Anti-Semitism runs through most conspiracy theories like letters in a stick of rock.
Secondly, and most measurable and obvious, is the physical harm that conspiracy theories cause. Public health issues, like the large rise in cases of Measles in the UK recently, were caused by anxiety over non-existent links between MMR vaccines and autism. This can be directly related to proven false information spread by anti-vaxxers. In the USA Covid deaths amongst Republican voters were 43% higher than Democrat voters purely because Republican voters refused vaccines due to ludicrous conspiracy theories pushed by right-wing politicians. A quarter of mass shootings in the USA between 2016-2020 were carried out by people directly inspired by right-wing conspiracy theories. Attacks and harassment triggered by conspiracy theories are also common in the UK.
Thirdly and most important of all, is the damage caused to civil society and political discussion by the poison of conspiracy theories. Part of this is, again, a very deliberate strategy by right-wingers to create doubt and distrust throughout society, via the tactic described by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon as “flood the zone with shit”. By promoting cynicism, the ‘they’re all the same’ attitude and anti-democratic assumptions, conspiracy theories fragment communities and alienate people, telling us everything is lost, whilst at the same time destroying the solidarity we need to change things. Many people are rightly disenchanted with a political establishment that has largely abandoned them, but conspiracy theories are being weaponised by the right to attack our means of changing anything. ‘Politics’ has become a dirty word. But we need politics to get ourselves out of the mess we are in. We need community and solidarity to defend ourselves and build a better world.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
I read with interest Kent’s original piece and the responses from Jonathan and Neil and couldn’t help feeling that, whilst the first two came across as reasonable and considered – raising legitimate questions about accounts that the establishment are wont to have us believe – Neil’s response serves only to express his rage at those that don’t (blindly?) believe that which he does. The first two pieces make no demands on the reader to believe one way or the other, but Neil insists that he knows best without providing much in the way of evidence to back up his assertions.
Let’s have a look a selection of the “evidence” that he addresses to support his “beliefs”.
The Mueller Report (officially titled ‘Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election’) could reasonably be argued to have been part of a conspiracy (of agents of the Clinton administration along with other agents/agencies) to uncover a conspiracy theory (that the Russians interfered in the US election process in such a way as to influence the outcome – it was a failure in that endeavour). I did a search of the report for the terms “Qanon”, “4Chan” and “8Chan” – no matches were found!
His claims that “the large rise in cases of Measles in the UK recently, were caused by anxiety over non-existent links between MMR vaccines and autism”, and “This can be directly related to proven false information spread by anti-vaxxers” are utter nonsense and should require no further comment by me. Just think about those claims. If you, dear reader, can provide any convincing evidence to support them, I’d be happy to reconsider my opinion.
His claim that “In the USA Covid deaths amongst Republican voters were 43% higher than Democrat voters…”, was lifted from the article “Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic” published on the JAMA Network. I can only assume that he hasn’t read said paper. I haven’t either, but just reading the section titled “Limitations” led me to suspect quite strongly that the claim is based on some spurious correlation. One of the commenters (Judith de Rycker, MD) delved a little deeper:
===
“What I find the most interesting phrases in this article are the following two:
The analyses stratified by age showed that Republican voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Democratic voters for 2 of the 4 age groups in the study, the differences for the age group 25 to 64 years were not significant. Democratic voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Republican voters for the age group 65 to 74 years.”
If the conclusion is that the excess death in Republicans is due to a lower degree of vaccination and less adherence to non-pharmaceutical measures, then this study shows that both have no significant impact on the age group 25 to 64. The excess death rates of Democratic voters between 65 to 74, need further investigation.”
===
Another commenter (Bechara Ghorayeb, MD) made the (I think quite relevant) point that “The authors did not disclose their political affiliation”!
I’ve no doubt that Neil’s heart might be in the right place, but (at least) on the subject of conspiracy theory, his head surely is not.
I’m unsure as to the reason of your response here, dear reader, as you have clearly moved in to your retort with a significant bias; let us highlight specifically here your comments on Neil’s fifth paragraph “utter nonsense and should require no further comment by me. Just think about those claims”. Did you feel like providing any actual substance to your claims of nonsense as Neil has, or will you do little more than bash researched work with responses akin to ‘I disagree and won’t substantiate my disagreement’.
If we read through the rest of your delightful comment, we do start to see a pattern emerge “I can only assume that he hasn’t read said paper. I haven’t either” and ” I did a search of the report”. Whilst dearest Thomas, you seem quite keen to throw around the accusation of individuals knowing “best without providing much in the way of evidence to back up [their] assertions.” it seems you playing the pot and the kettle.
Perhaps moving forward, you would feel the need to substantiate your own argument, as well as doing a smidge of reading, before calling others out for what you deem to be the same?
My initial response to Doubting Thomas’s comment was that he has just completely missed the point. My article didn’t set out to disprove any conspiracy theories, it was simply trying to show how toxic they are. Thomas doesn’t have any argument against that.
The evidence I based my argument on is easily substantiated (and I have read it all!) unlike both Kent and Jonathan’s articles which assert things that are demonstrably false – the most obvious being Jonathan’s reference to the CIA Dispatch 1035-960 which does NOT say what he claims it does! Similarly, Kent TWICE states that The Great Reset includes “abolishing private property and moving to a digital only currency” which isn’t true (I’ve also read it all). The real Great Reset is a bad enough idea without embellishing it.
Fundamentally, the mistake Thomas and Kent are making is in confusing “conspiracy theory” with conspiracy. Of course, there are conspiracies happening all over the place, all the time. But there’s a really important difference between ACTUAL scandals like the British State spying on its own people (e.g. SpyCops) and a vague idea that (((they))) are out to get us. Like the difference between fake 5G conspiracies and real PPE contract scandals. Genuine scandals (like 355,000 deaths from Tory Austerity) end up deliberately lost in the swirling vortex of anti-Semitic bullshit.
The definition of “conspiracy theory” (in Kent’s article!) is “an explanation … that asserts the existence of a conspiracy … WHEN OTHER EXPLANATIONS ARE MORE PROBABLE”. Brian Keeley’s essay, “Of Conspiracy Theories” adds an apt moderator when he refers to UNWARRANTED explanations. The difference is clear: conspiracy theories are not based on evidence; they are based on unverifiable garbage.
To Thomas’s questions about the “evidence”? He tries to show a broad point is incorrect by conflating its two components, but the Mueller Report DID find evidence of “sweeping and systematic” Russian election interference including a “social media information warfare campaign”. Is Thomas trying to argue that Qanon DIDN’T come from 4Chan? Or that Russian Tweet farms DIDN’T bombard Americans with false information?
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531
https://theconversation.com/how-mainstream-media-helps-weaponize-far-right-conspiracy-theories-106223
http://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/662009622/how-online-conspiracy-theories-make-their-way-into-the-mainstream
Regarding the MMR vaccine, it’s hard to know what he is objecting to. The large rise in the number of Measles cases?
http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-confirmed-cases/confirmed-cases-of-measles-mumps-and-rubella-in-england-and-wales-2012-to-2013
How the link between the MMR vaccine and autism (“the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years”) is completely false?
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
https://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
Or that bogus anti-vaxx information frightened parents? https://inews.co.uk/news/mmr-vaccines-autism-fraud-consequences-25-years-2176794
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9705374/MMR-uptake-rates-finally-recovered-from-Wakefield-scandal-figures-show.html
Regarding Thomas’s comments about the report that found a 43% higher death rate in Republicans than Democrats, you have to admire the chutzpah of admitting that he hasn’t read the source materials but is sure he is right anyway. I HAVE read the report. The discrepancy between death rates is plain to see, regardless of your opinion of the cause. The key point is that it is not a criticism of Republicans. It is a call for healthcare professionals to find ways to appeal to vaccine-hesitant people in order to avoid increases in death rates.
Which brings me back to my fundamental point: conspiracy theories are not a free speech issue. This is about lies and the impact of those lies. Climate Change deniers threaten our very survival on this planet. Anti-vaxxers kill older people with their lies. Conspiracy theories like The Great Replacement get Black people and Jews murdered. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you get to spread your favourite fairy story as if it’s real, without reply or consequence.
If he thinks its about anti-Semitism, Neil O’Warne should watch the documentaries by Holocaust survivor, Vera Sharav. “Never Again Is Now Global”. Holocaust survivors & children of survivors express their shock at today’s fear-mongering and divisive dictates that are reminiscent of the prelude to the Holocaust. On the 75th anniversary of the publication of the Nuremberg Code, which had established the inviolable principle of ‘informed consent’ to all medical experiments. A commemoration in Nuremberg, featured a speech by Holocaust survivor, Vera Sharav. The speech was effectively censored by the mainstream media, and despite the existence of a German law prohibiting the comparison of the Holocaust to any other event, past or present, Sharav did not hold back. “The purpose of Holocaust memorials,” she said, “is to warn and inform future generations about how an enlightened, civilised society can be transformed into a genocidal universe, ruled by absolute moral depravity. If we are to avert another Holocaust, we must identify ominous current parallels before they poison the fabric of society. … Those who declare that Holocaust analogies are ‘off-limits’ are betraying the victims of the Holocaust by denying the relevance of the Holocaust.” “Never Again Is Now Global,” is a five-part docuseries highlighting the parallels between Nazi Germany and global pandemic policies.
Vera Sharav has been an anti-vaxxer for decades. She’s a total extremist. You missed out the highlight of her speech at Nuremberg, when she actually compared vaccines to Zyklon B and called them “weapons of mass destruction”! I won’t be watching her YouTube shows, a co-production with Children’s Health Defense which is documented as one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines in the USA. What these people are saying is just plain crazy. They want to take us back to the Dark Ages.