Quote:The President of the French Republic, François Hollande, has assimilated what he calls "conspiracy theories" to Nazism and called to prevent their dissemination on the Internet and social networks.

Thus he declared, on January 27, 2015 at the Shoah Memorial:

"[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst "(...)" [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks. Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce" [1].

Several ministers also decried what they called conspiracy theorists as so many "fermenters of hate and disintegrators of society."

Knowing that President Hollande calls "conspiracy theory" the idea that States, whatever their regimes - including democracies - have a spontaneous tendency to act in their own interests and not in that of their constituents, we can conclude that he presented this confused amalgam to justify a possible censure of his opponents.

This interpretation is confirmed by the publication of a note entitled "Conspiracy theories, current status" by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, a Socialist Party think tank of which Mr. Holland was the first secretary. [2]

Let's leave aside the political relations of François Hollande, the Socialist Party, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, its political radicalism Observatory and the author of the note and let's focus on its message and its ideological content.

Definition of "conspiracy theories"

The terms "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorism" have developed in France in the wake of the publication of my book on US imperialism post-September 11, titled The Big Lie [3]. At the time, we had trouble understanding what the terms meant because they referred to American political history. In the United States, are commonly called "conspiracy theorists" those according to whom President Kennedy had not been assassinated by one man but by many, forming a conspiracy (in the judicial sense). Over time, these expressions entered in the French language and have overlapped with memories of the 30s and the Second World War, those of the denunciation of the "Jewish conspiracy". These are therefore now polysemous, sometimes evoking the law of the state-Stator silence and, at other times, European anti-Semitism.

In its note, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation gives its own definition of conspiracy theorism. It is

"an 'alternative' narrative that claims to significantly upset the knowledge we have of an event and therefore competes with the "version" which is commonly accepted, stigmatized as "official"" (p. 2).

Observe that this definition does not apply solely to the delusions of the mentally ill. Thus, Socrates, through the myth of the cave, affirmed his challenge to the certainties of his time; Galileo with his heliocentric theory challenged the prevailing interpretation of the Bible of his time; etc.

For my part, and since they see me as the "pope of conspiracy theorists" or rather the "heretic" in the words of Italian philosopher Roberto Quaglia, I reaffirm my radical political commitment, in keeping with the French republican radicalism of Leon Bourgeois [4], of Georges Clemenceau, [5] of Alain [6] and of Jean Moulin. [7] For me, as for them, the state is a Leviathan which by nature abuses those it governs.

As a radical Republican, I am aware that the state is the enemy of the common good, of the Res Publica; which is why I wish not to abrogate it, but to tame it. The republican ideal is compatible with various political regimes-including monarchies, as was enacted by the authors of the Declaration of 1789.

This opposition, which the current Socialist Party disputes, has so shaped our history as Philippe Pétain repealed the Republic to proclaim the "French State". Immediately after his assuming presidential office, I denounced Hollande's Petainism [8]. Today, Mr. Hollande claims to be of the Republic to better fight it and this inversion of values ​​plunges the country into confusion.

Who are the "conspiracy theorists"?

The "conspiracy theorists" are thus citizens who oppose the omnipotence of the State and who wish to place it under surveillance.

The Jean-Jaurès Foundation describes them as follows:

"[It's] a heterogeneous movement, heavily entangled with the Holocaust denial movement, and which combines admirers of Hugo Chavez and fans of Vladimir Putin. An underworld that consist of former left-wing activists or extreme leftists, former "malcontents", sovereignists, revolutionary nationalists, ultra-nationalists, nostalgists of the Third Reich, anti-vaccination activists, supporters of drawing straws, September 11th revisionists, anti-Zionists, Afrocentricists, survivalists, followers of "alternative medicine", agents of influence of the Iranian regime, Bacharists, Catholic or Islamic fundamentalists "(p. 8).

One will note the amalgams and abuse of this description aiming to discredit those it designates.

Myths of the "conspiracy theorists"

The Jean-Jaurès Foundation continues its vilification by accusing "conspiracy theorists" of ignoring the realities of the world and naively believing hackneyed myths. Thus, they would believe in the "World Zionist plot", the "illuminati conspiracy" and the "Rothschild myth" (p. 4). And to credit these three statements, it cites an example solely on the "Rothschild myth": blogger Etienne Chouard - whose work is not simply about the Republic, but goes beyond to treat Democracy [9] - says the Pompidou-Rothschild 1973 law is the source of the debt of France. And the Foundation goes on to refute this assertion by quoting an article published by Libération.

One will note here that the example of Étienne Chouard leaves one unsatisfied about the two other cited myths. Especially, the Foundation addresses ignorant people who have neither read the response from Mr. Chouard to Libération [10] nor the contribution of the "conspiracy theorist", former Prime minister Michel Rocard. [11] Indeed, in this debate, it is clear that the 1973 law allowed the explosion of the French debt in favor of private banks, which would have been impossible before.

The "conspirasphere"

For the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, conspiracy intellectuals would be

"essentially North Americans. Particular mention is made of Webster Tarpley and William Engdhal (both former members of the US political-sectarian organization led by Lyndon LaRouche), Wayne Madsen (WayneMadsenReport.com), Kevin Barrett (VeteransToday.com) or Michel Chossudovsky (Mondialisation.ca ). With their European counterparts, they form a kind of International to which Thierry Meyssan, president of Voltaire Network, tried to give concrete form in November 2005 in Brussels, bringing together an "anti-imperialist conference" - "Axis for Peace "- the list of participants of which reads like a who's who of conspiracy authors most prominent at the time" (p. 8).

First, let's observe that the Fondation Jean-Jaurès must only read in French and English, and have barely skimmed over the participants' lists of Axis for Peace, to believe that the phenomenon it describes only concerns France, Canada and the United States. In fact it includes a very large literature in Arabic, Spanish, Persian and Russian; languages ​​which are also in the majority in Axis for Peace.

Let's note also the malicious nature of the reference to "the politico-sectarian American organization led by Lyndon LaRouche." Indeed, William Webster Tarpley and Engdhal quit this organization more than 20 years ago. And at the time when they were members, this party was represented in France at an extreme-left organization's congress.

A little further on, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation does not fail to mention the comedian Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, whose shows the State seeks to prohibit, the sociologist Alain Soral, whose website (EgaliteEtReconciliation.fr ) obtains audience records in France, and Alain Benajam (facebook.com/alain.benajam), chairman of Voltaire Network France and representative of the Novorossian Government of Donbass.

The political ideas of "conspiracy theorists"

After these appetizers, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès comes to the heart of the debate, that of political ideas. It defines those of the "conspiracy theorists" thus:

- "the erasure of any distinction in kind between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes (deemed more "totalitarian" than the worst of totalitarianism)";
- "[Opposition to] any anti-racist legislation under the pretext of defending "freedom of expression";
- "[Rejection of] the relevance of the left-right divide, the real divide is the one between" the system "(or" Empire "or the" oligarchy ") and those who resist it"; (P. 8)
- "the idea that Zionism is a project of world domination" (p. 9).

The Jean-Jaurès Foundation specifically targets areas of conflict, but exaggerates to discredit its opponents. For example, no one is opposed to all anti-racism legislation, but only and exclusively to the Fabius-Gayssot law that punishes by imprisonment any debate about the extermination of the Jews of Europe [12].

What is Zionism?

The Foundation then engages in a very long analysis of my works on Zionism. It disfigures them, then comments:

"Thierry Meyssan's anti-Zionism bears no resemblance to the criticism of a situation, that of the governments that have been able to succeed each other at the head of the State of Israel. It does not arise from an anti-colonialism that would be resolved by Israel's withdrawal from the territories occupied after the Six Day War and the creation of a Palestinian state. It also does not proceed from an internationalism that would hold in suspicion, in principle, any national movement wherever it comes from, precisely because it does not liken Zionism to a national movement. This paranoid anti-Zionism does not pretend to fight Zionism in the diversity of its historical expressions, but as a fantastic hydra that is the source of evil in the world. "

In wanting to conclude this debate by giving it considerable space in its analysis, the Jean Jaurès Foundation highlights its importance. I indeed defend a position thus far absent in the Western political debate [13]:

- The first head of state who stated his intention to bring together Jews from around the world in a state that would be theirs was Lord Cromwell in the seventeenth century. His project, clearly explained, was to use the Jewish diaspora to expand English hegemony. This project has been defended by all successive British governments and registered by Benjamin Disraeli in the agenda of the Berlin Conference.

- Theodor Herzl himself was a disciple of Cecil Rhodes, the theorist of the British Empire. Herzl originally proposed to create Israel in Uganda or Argentina, not in Palestine. When he succeeded in having Jewish activists adhere to the British project, he bought land in Palestine by creating the Jewish Agency whose articles are a carbon copy of the Rhodes society in Southern Africa.

- In 1916-17, the United Kingdom and the United States reconciled themselves by committing together to create the state of Israel through the Balfour Declaration in London and Wilson's 14 points in Washington.

It is therefore perfectly absurd to claim that Herzl invented Zionism, to separate the Zionist project from British colonialism, and to deny that the State of Israel is a tool of the common imperial project in London and Washington.

The position of the Parti socialiste on this subject is not innocent. In 1936 it proposed with Léon Blum to create the state of Israel on the territory of the Lebanon mandate [14]. However the project was quickly dismissed because of the opposition of the French High Commissioner in Beirut, Damien de Martel de Janville.

Concluding remarks

In 2008, Professor Cass Sunstein, an adviser to President Barack Obama and husband of the US Ambassador to the UN, had written a similar note [15].

He wrote:

"We can easily imagine a series of possible answers.
- 1. The government can ban conspiracy theories.
- 2. The government could impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
- 3. The government could engage in a contrary discourse to discredit conspiracy theories.
- 4. The government could initiate credible private parties to engage in a discourse against conspiracy theories.
- 5. The government could engage in informal communication with third parties and encourage them. "

Ultimately, the US government had decided to fund individuals, both at home and abroad, to disrupt the forum websites of conspiracy theorists and to create groups to contradict them.

This not having sufficed, France is called upon to take authoritarian measures. As in the past, the French elites, of which the Socialist Party forms the pseudo-left wing, have placed themselves under the orders of the main military power of the time, in this case, the US.

Let's not be naive, we are approaching an inevitable showdown. It remains to be determined which instance, necessarily administrative, will be in charge of censorship and what will be its criteria.

Magda Hassan Wrote:So, the French government will conspire against conspiracy theorists. Love how they put supporters of Putin and Chavez in the definition of conspiracy theorists. And 'malcontents' is such a vague catch all word.

Quote:They were thousands of people marching all over France for Freedom of Speech, chanting JE SUIS CHARLIE, after the killing of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. No surprise there. Arguing in France is a national sport, the French just love to discuss the pros and cons of such and such ideas and to defend their point of view in discussions that can last forever. However, some had doubts about the political exploitation of such a massive rally. It looks like they were right.

First, there was a political and mediatic outcry against whoever considered to be an anti-Charlie. That led to a string of arrests on the vague charge of "defending terrorism".

But that was just the beginning. What we are seeing now, is the start of a smear campaign to denounce all "conspirationists" who dare to disagree with the official policy of the French government.

It started when president Hollande has assimilated what he calls "conspiracy theories" to Nazism and called to prevent their dissemination on the Internet and social networks.

His speech at the Shoah Memorial on January 27, 2015 is crystal clear:

"[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst "(…)" [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks. Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce" (source: Voltairenet.org)

He then asked the French Socialist Party to prepare new legislation to repress all dissident voices.

French presstitutes wasted no time to join in the dance.

The leftish weekly Marianne (that self-proclaim itself as fighting one track thinking) has published an in-depth review under the title "Conspiracy nuts".

L'Express, another weekly, has created its own directory of "sites d'infaux" (literally "false news sites"), listing their name, their category (blogs, alternative info, parody) and what kind of "false news" they spread. Even worse, they invite their readers to submit their links, which is nothing less than encouraging them to act as stool pigeons (they're bragging that they added 30 new sites thanks to their readers). Just imagine Newsweek doing the same in the US.

Left leaning Libération had less chance with its list of evil pro-russian sites, that was removed after howls of protest among its readers. The list include not only the French Saker and members of the French Saker Team (félicitation mes amis!!) but also the Original Saker Blog and a reference to our entire community.

A full fledged media campaign against "conspiracy theories" has just started, telling the good people of France that all Websites challenging the single worldview the French government want to impose are all nests of fascists, Nazis, terrorists, lunatics and anti-semitics. All this in the name of Freedom of Thought.

Next will come a law prohibiting all those sites, that could lead to forced closure and arrest of those who just question the official thinking.

In the meantime, many French are thanking those magazines for the opportunity to introduce them to informative Websites they were longing for. An eloquent proof that the French still believe in the plurality of views.

Quote:The estrangement and doubt toward the conspiratorial by many attendees was evident in some paper titles, such as, "Anti-Science Conspiracy Theories of the Right and Left," "Telling the Truth About Believing the Lies," and "Conspiracy Beliefs and Personal Beliefs: Exploring the Linkage between a Person's Value System and his/her Conspiratorial Ideas." One overarching assumption in the social scientific research was evident in three conspiracy bugaboos: "climate change denial," "vaccination denial," and questioning President Obama's genealogy. Other sources of what certain academic vernaculars term "conspiracy ideation" or "conspiracy belief" included 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the crash of TWA 800.

What made the conference especially exciting, however, was how many of the social scientistswhen they were not involving themselves in weighty and often abstruse discussions over their studies' methodological nuanceswere fending off challenges by the handful of cultural historians and philosophers in attendance for failing to more closely consider the often compelling substance of the many conspiracy theories the former summarily labeled and took for granted as irrational.

Yet the key note addresses of any conference are an acknowledgement of what is believed to be the cutting edge and future of the given field. Keeping in mind that the event was organized by political scientists who must dance between disciplinary and institutional raindrops of their field, the invitees were revealing, with two asking the proverbial "What should be done about the conspiracy theories?" question á la Cass Sunstein.

One of the speakers, Brendan Nyhan, is an ambitious career progressive and political scientist of Ivy League pedigree. He is also a somewhat strident public ideologue well known for anti-conspiracisma sort of youngish Chip Berlet or David Brock (sans the experience as right wing publicist) whose erudition makes him appealing to New York Times and Salon readerships. The academic's approach is also painfully emblematic of the discomfort and trepidation with which American social scientists generally approach the study of conspiracy theory.
Nyhan's talk addressed the problem of public distrust that arises when lettered law enforcement and spy agencies release heavily redacted documents. Focusing on the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800, the speaker dismisses tout court all of the evidence and research suggesting that the aircraft might have been gunned down by the US military as a clear manifestation of conspiracy theory hucksters trying to make a buck from the profound tragedy.

With so many other quantitative social science researchers in attendance, the ensuing discussion centered not on Nyhan's rather disingenuous approach, but largely on how the presenter might tweak his method to better identify and measure public doubt over the release of such documents. This is, after all, the sort of information the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies could readily employ to anticipate and deter conspiracy ideation.

Another keynote by Eric Oliver from University of Chicago, "Enchanted America: Magic, Metaphor, and Conspiracy Theories of US Public Opinion," offered a profile of a 71-year-old woman Oliver interviewed who turned out to be against vaccination and a proponent of organic food. Ominously, however, she was also a fundamentalist Christian harboring a Manichean view of how state and geopolitical affairs play out. The observation provided the basis for presentation of an elaborate survey research project correlating personal anxiety in everyday life with the propensity to believe in specific political conspiracies or reject the supposed scientific status quo.

A final keynote by University of Kent social psychologist Karen Douglas, "The Social Costs of Conspiracy," brooded over how "conspiracy belief" had a decidedly negative impact on civic participation and "the greater good." Douglas argued that there are grave consequences for the broader society stemming from those who "don't vaccinate, don't vote," and "don't reduce their carbon footprint."

Echoing Nyhan, Douglas referenced Sunstein's well-known co-authored paper calling for the "cognitive infiltration" of conspiracy theorist communities. Yet Douglas was also challenged by philosophers waiting in the wings to re-examine some of her assumptions on conspiracy thought and what actions the state should take to discourage or reroute such thinking.

The reader should not conclude from the above that the conference was a complete circling of the wagons by anti-conspiracy theory social scientists with plans to tax conspiracy theorizing or send would be conspiracy theorists to the gulag. After all, only policy makers and government edicts can do that. Yet such sentiment was also tempered by the event's interdisciplinary makeup and humanities scholars who are far less bound to the government and foundation grantsor the New York Timesto propel their public image and ideas.

With the above in mind this author is left pondering exactly where critical thinking ends and "conspiracy ideation" begins. One of the most insightful comments I heard throughout the entire event came as a personal aside from a sociologist between panels. Invoking Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he remarked, "The scientists often see the shortcomings of their paradigms only after they've collapsed."