The Pejorative tag "conspiracy theorist"

[Martin White]

In the UK today, a Home Office Minister, Norman Baker has resigned from the Government. Baker has been described, by John Rentoul of The Independent as "unfit for office", with his belief in "conspiracy theories" as a contributor to this. The case that Rentoul refers to is the Dr David Kelly "suicide". I have to confess, I have done no reading on this case and therefore I offer no opinion on it. Rentoul refers to Aaronovitch's book which explains why people are attracted to conspiracy theories (as if facts and evidence have nothing to do with it)

I challenged Rentoul on this, "History has shown that many things described at the time as "conspiracy theory" have, actually, been fact."

His reply: "No, it hasn't"

I am not expecting a reply to my follow up questions.

The use of the tag "conspiracy theorist" as synonymous with "nutcase" is my chief pet hate, and the biggest indicator that you will find for lazy journalism. It is simply a cliché for "someone who doesn't believe the official version of the truth".

I am supposing that the origins of the phrase come from the JFK case. Opposition to the "Oswald did it alone" story meant, by definition, a conspiracy. Hence any opposing argument became known as a "conspiracy theory". The problem is now twofold. Firstly, despite what Rentoul believes, history has proven conspiracies exist. I don't need to list them here, of all places. In particular, history has shown that the accepted version of events was palpably false, and the truth was that which was previously ridiculed. The earth is round, after all.

Secondly, the use of the tag "conspiracy theorist" to demean someone who offers a different version, where the accepteid version is a conspiracy, is just plain lazy and stupid. As David Ray Griffin said in The New Pearl Harbor, 9/11 is a conspiracy which ever way you look at it. The question is, whose conspiracy was it?

How about a book - Jim DiEugenio I'm looking at you! - that lists historical cases which have been proven not to have been truthfully explained at the time?

[David Guyatt]

The use of "conspiracy theory" to kill any argument no matter how well reasoned, evidenced, or substantiated is something that drives many of us here crazy. But we know that a double standard is in play about this by the media and opinion formers. They can simply and baldly assert their side of the argument (as Rentoul's answer to you "No, it hasn't"), whereas we on this side generally have to provide a clear and honest argument.

It's a rigged game that is wholly based on knowledge that the public is thoroughly trained in thought-myopia, kept in the dark about reality and taught to digest bullshit instead of facts. And so long as the media continues to possess control of information and news, this is going to continue. Fortunately, they are slowly, but surely, losing control of information spread thanks to the internet (fingers crossed anyway)

Personally I never saw much to favour Baker's book on Dr. David Kelly's homi-sui-cide. I think he probably got to the truth of it but even so refrains from pointing an accusing finger at the Israel-USA-UK nexus - preferring unlikely actors, principally Iraqi, as the probable culprits. Which is BS obviously.

For me he was less than courageous, and rather more typical of a pol, by bottling it.

[Martin White]

Funnily enough I have never heard, as an explanation as to why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories "BECAUSE THE POLITICIANS AND THE MEDIA HAVE LIED TO US FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS - AT LEAST".

Aaronovitch's hypothesis is psycho-crap.

[Martin White]

It gets worse. I've just read from his Twitter profile that John Rentoul is a "visiting professor, contemporary history, Queen Mary University, London".

[Martin White]

I just posted this as a comment to a review of Aaronovitch's book "Voodoo History" on Amazon.co.uk

The reason that conspiracy theories gain traction these days is simply that governments and the media have a proven track record of lying to the public, only to be found out by declassified records. For example, CIA's Operation Mockingbird to control the agenda of the media including having journalists in their employ. We know from declassified documents that the CIA issued guidance to their media assets on how to paint the authors of books critical of the Warren Commission in a bad light - they were doing it for profit; they are trying to subvert the American government; etc etc. This is the CIA!!! Telling the media how to review books critical of the house of cards that was the Warren Report!!!

The Oliver Stone film JFK led directly to the creation of the JFK Records Act which formed the Assassinations Records Review Board, an official, legally sanctioned body. From the work of that organisation, we know that Gerald Ford (yes, that Gerald Ford) moved the description of the bullet hole in JFK's back from "below the shoulders" (which is where it was, 5 3/4" below the shirt collar) to "the base of the back of the neck" in order to make the single bullet theory possible. We know from the ARRB's work that the body did not arrive for autopsy in the coffin that it left Dallas in. We also know from the ARRB's work that the autopsy doctors sawed the head open BEFORE THE AUTOPSY began in order to change the appearance of the head wounds. We also know from the work of the ARRB that the diagrams of the brain shown in the records is of a second brain belonging to someone else. It can't be John F. Kennedy's.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Doug Horne, the Assassination Records Review Board's Chief Analyst for Military Records. He has a presentation here: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/

We know now from the work of the Church Committee in 1975 that the CIA was plotting to kill Fidel Castro in alliance with the American Mafia, and that the FBI was undertaking illegal surveillance against US citizens within the US.

I have few firm views on 9/11, but consider this: the question is NOT "Was 9/11 a conspiracy?" The official story has 19 Saudi hijackers all working together! That is the definition of a conspiracy! The REAL question is "Whose conspiracy was it?" in other words, who was involved. Even the official report for 9/11 has no explanation for how building 7 collapsed or why. It wasn't hit by any planes, it didn't have jet fuel burning inside it. They can't explain it, and expect the rest of us to be happy with that.

Watergate? Again, an acknowledged conspiracy. Whose? Good question.

Oh, and let's not forget all of those WMDs that the media and governments TOLD us existed in Iraq. They wouldn't lie to us would they?

The real point of all of this is to be found in the old phrase "Treason doth never prosper. For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Conspiracies happen, all right. That's a proven, historical fact. Only when it's accepted, no one ever refers to it as a conspiracy.

I have no problem whatsoever in criticising someone's version of an event if there is no evidence to support that view. What I DO have a problem with is the pejorative label "conspiracy theorist" being used to stifle discussion and belittle the people putting forward arguments that are often valid. It is the biggest act of intellectual snobbery to dismiss as "conspiracy theory" a valid argument. For example, I very much doubt that Aaronovitch even knows what the ARRB are and what they did, let alone the facts they uncovered.

[Malcolm Pryce]

A good review and a valiant effort Martin. I have to say I have reached the sad conclusion it is largely a waste of time trying to persuade people by drawing their attention to the evidence, no matter how compelling it is. The problem is not the evidence, it's the mind-set. Most people who use the ad hom conspiracy theory' are really just saying, That can't be true because if it were I wouldn't like it'. Most people react to information that threatens their established beliefs with hostility, mockery, and a drawing-up of the drawbridge. What fascinates me is, why some people can have the scales fall from their eyes, and others never will. What is the difference?

[David Guyatt]

What fascinates me is, why some people can have the scales fall from their eyes, and others never will. What is the difference?

That's a heck of a good question Malcolm. If you ever find an answer, please copy me in on it. It is a mystery isn't it. My best guess is that some people have reached a point where understanding and honesty can be psychologically accommodated. Most are content to be blind and unseeing because of, I suspect, a high level of fear of what a change in their mind-set might actually entail.

Once the scales have been knocked off their eyes, as many of us know, it is voluntarily impossible to return to that prior unconscious state again. It is not a switch that can be turned off once it has been turned on.

[Martin White]

What fascinates me is, why some people can have the scales fall from their eyes, and others never will. What is the difference?

That's a heck of a good question Malcolm. If you ever find an answer, please copy me in on it. It is a mystery isn't it. My best guess is that some people have reached a point where understanding and honesty can be psychologically accommodated. Most are content to be blind and unseeing because of, I suspect, a high level of fear of what a change in their mind-set might actually entail.

Once the scales have been knocked off their eyes, as many of us know, it is voluntarily impossible to return to that prior unconscious state again. It is not a switch that can be turned off once it has been turned on.

Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly would disagree with you on that.

[Anthony Thorne]

Graeme MacQueen has a lengthy section at the beginning of his new anthrax book where he justifies and defends the use of the term 'conspiracy theorist', and suggests that researchers need to step up a little in reclaiming the term. He feels that avoiding the terminology for fear of being tar-and-feathered makes it harder to openly discuss conspiracies, and limits the ability of researchers to publicly critique the activities of the various intelligence communities and military/industrial complex insiders that repeatedly commit conspiracies against us. The full title of his book is THE 2001 ANTHRAX DECEPTION - THE CASE FOR A DOMESTIC CONSPIRACY, and he basically notes that if that's what it was, that's what you have to call it. This is occasionally easier said than done, I'll admit.

[David Guyatt]

I put the word voluntarily in there to cover situations where people may change their attitude through fear of harm or through irresistible enticement etc.