Almost any story that challenges the officially approved explanation will be rightfully labeled a conspiracy theory, which doesn’t mean the story is wrong, but technically means only that the story alleges two or more people conspiring to commit an illicit act. From Jim Fetzer at unz.com:
The public has been fed an endless stream of attacks upon conspiracy theories, which, we are told, are supposed to be very bad for human beings and other living things. But precisely why is almost never explained. And when you consider that our political parties and the mainstream media indulge themselves in conspiracy theories, such as the claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 election (otherwise Donald Trump could never have been elected) or, alternatively, that Dominion voting machines were used to steal the election of 2020 (and otherwise could not have been defeated) are, in the first instance, promoted by the media (in spite of virtually no evidence at all) and, in the second, denied thereby (in spite of massive supporting proof). Both are conspiracy theories, where one appears to be true and the other appears to be false.
Since at least some conspiracy theories thus appear to be true, we need to be able to tell the difference. Even university professors have shown a decided aversion to conspiracy theories, buying into the stereotypical conception that the key characteristic of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable. A “tip sheet” for one college, for example, makes the declaration that “The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it’s wrong, but that it’s inarguable; not that it’s false, but that it is unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.” If that were true, it would certainly count against them, making them akin to theoretical affirmations about the existence of God (as a classic case) or the existence of a universal “Force” a la Star Wars (more contemporary). But is it actually true?
A study published in Frontiers of Psychology, “’What about Building 7?’ A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories” (8 July 2013), for example, suggests that those often characterized as “conspiracy theorists” are more skeptical of what they are told by the government (“official accounts”) than they are enamored of specific alternatives and are more open-minded in the interpretation of evidence. They are less inclined to defer to officials as authorities and more inclined to look at the evidence, which even hints that the study of alternative theories of events like 9/11 might be an effective method to teach critical thinking.
People who don’t believe that two or more people in government sometimes agree to commit crimes or other illicit acts (the definition of conspiracy) have a name, too: idiots. From Matthew Ehret at off-guardian.org:
If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.
Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.
If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.
Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”
(Lest you think that this was a subversion of democracy, Ball informs us that “they were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”)
Another conclusion you might come to is that many of the political figures whom you believed were serving those who elected them into office, actually serve the interests of a clique of technocrats and billionaires lusting over the deconstruction of western civilization under something called “a Great Reset”.
ll of us believe in some conspiracies. Many subscribe to the philosophy of the ultimate pessimist, that guy named Murphy, and his law, which observed that the other line moves faster. You know it’s going to rain after you wash your car, or painted something outside. The car’s going to need an emergency $500 repair, right after you get a $500 bonus. A gust of wind will come along and mess up your new hairdo. The list is endless.
Most people believe at least some things are rigged against them. They may not extend that to the system being rigged against average people everywhere, but in their own personal lives, they nod their heads knowingly when something goes awry. You play the same number all the time in the lottery, and the one day you don’t buy a ticket, are you surprised that it finally comes up? It’s only paranoid when you start talking about shadowy, powerful forces.
Every year, the world’s government, business, and media leaders meet in absolute secrecy at ritzy hotels around the world. The so-called Bilderberg group was never written about for decades, outside of the feisty weekly newspaper The Spotlight. Their existence was denied by all respectable people. With the advent of increased citizen journalism on the internet, these power brokers were filmed going in and out of these meetings. Intrepid reporters like the late Jim Tucker snuck inside and took their attendee list and agenda. Hearty citizen journalists gathered outside and attempted, almost always unsuccessfully, to interview the participants. Now, the Bilderbergers are a real thing, but you’re a “conspiracy theorist” if you believe the most influential people in the world meet for any significant reason.
In the summer, the elite hold another confab, in the mountains of northern California. For decades, it was “crazy” to claim that powerful, strictly male figures would get together in secrecy, and worship a giant owl. Then Alex Jones snuck into Bohemian Grove and filmed the “cremation of care” ceremony, which took place under a giant owl. Walter Cronkite was the voice of the owl for many years. But we’re still assured that they’re just getting together to relax.
The DC Circuit has ruled that the CIA is under no obligation to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests pertaining to its involvement with insurgent militias in Syria, overturning a lower court’s previous ruling in favor of a Buzzfeed News reporter seeking such documents.
As Sputnik‘s Morgan Artyukhina clearly outlines, this ruling comes despite the fact that mainstream news outlets have been reporting on the Central Intelligence Agency’s activities in Syria for years, and despite a US president having openly tweeted about those activities.
“In other words, the CIA will not be required to admit to actions it is widely reported as having done, much less divulge documents about them to the press for even greater scrutiny,” Artyukhina writes, calling to mind the Julian Assange quote “The overwhelming majority of information is classified to protect political security, not national security.”
My latest: Despite extensive reporting by the @WSJ & CIA-vetted @nytimes confirming it happened, a DC court has sided with the @CIA, finding that a Trump tweet doesn't constitute proof that it funded al-Qaeda in #Syria. https://t.co/NFaQBrggV5
The CIA’s brazen collaboration with dangerous extremist factions seeking to topple Damascus, and its equally brazen refusal to provide the public with any information about the extent of its involvement in Syria from the earliest stages of the violence in that nation onwards, will necessarily provide fodder for conspiracy theories.
Is what we’re in a knowledge crisis, or is it a crisis of stick your fingers in your ears and scream to avoid anything you regard as unpleasant or not in alignment with your politics? Fro Adam Ellwanger at humanevents.com:
When pressed on the matter by President Trump in a debate, Joe Biden boasted that five former heads of the CIA said that the story was “a bunch of garbage.” A couple of days earlier, dozens of former intelligence officials had signed a statement that asserted the news had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” the statement read, “just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”
Bush administration speechwriter and Atlantic editor David Frum claimed on Twitter that “The story could not have been more obviously fake if it had been wearing dollar-store spectacles and attached plastic mustache.” Weeks after the FBI investigation of Hunter Biden was confirmed, Wikipedia still labels their entry on the matter as a “conspiracy theory.” Thus, in spite of emails,photographs, and video-recorded evidence to the contrary, any claim that the Bidens did anythingimproper (let alone “wrong” or “illegal”) was deemed “baseless.”
If the CIA told us anything about all the nefarious plots out there against the US, they’d have to kill us. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:
I’d like to tell you a folktale. It’s called “The Emperor’s New 9/11”.
Once upon a time there was an Emperor who loved war and military expansionism. He was always searching for new ways to instigate military conflicts without losing the support of the international community or waking up the populace to the fact that they’re just propagandized cogs in the machine of a globe-spanning Empire which uses endless military and economic violence to maintain its unipolar hegemony.
One day two men calling themselves Intelligence Experts came into town claiming that they had devised a wondrous new type of enemy threat that is invisible to the common folk.
“Is it as good as 9/11?” asked the Emperor excitedly. “Oh how I loved how that one allowed me to initiate a new era of military expansionism on the pretence of fighting global terrorism!”
“It’s even better!” explained the Intelligence Experts. “This magical enemy threat is comprised of Cyber Attacks which are completely invisible to public scrutiny, and you have complete control over where and when they happen. You just name a foreign government you don’t like, and we’ll say they have attacked the democracy of the Empire!”
“You mean the pretend democracy I lied to them about having?” asked the Emperor.
“Of course,” said the Intelligence Experts. “So you just name the disobedient government you want a fight with and we’ll give you your new 9/11.”
“Hmm, well I’m not very fond of the Russians,” said the Emperor. “They’ve been brazenly acting against our interests on the world stage and they keep getting friendlier with China. Let’s set to work on them first.”
So the Intelligence Experts set to work weaving their narrative about Russian Cyber Attacks. The Emperor put his mass media to work knitting together wonderful yarns of the Emperor’s wonderous new 9/11, simultaneously invisible to commoners yet outrageous and necessitating an aggressive response.
The Empire’s military budget was inflated, treaties were ended, and a new arms race was begun. Sanctions were rolled out against the Russian government, the Empire’s Nuclear Posture Review was readjusted with a much more hostile stance toward Moscow, troops were deployed and NATO was expanded. Anyone who objected to any of this was labeled Russian propaganda by the Empire.
By the strict definition of conspiracy—”to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement”—you’d be pathologically naive not to believe that those in government have not engaged in conspiracies. From Caitline Johnstone at medium.com:
“Our sources are still saying that it looks like suicide, and this is going to set conspiracy theorists abuzz I fear,” said NBC correspondent Ken Dilanian. “NBC News has been hearing all day long that there are no indications of foul play, and that this looks like a suicide and that he hung himself in his cell.”
Dilanian, who stumbled over the phrase “conspiracy theorists” in his haste to get it in the first soundbyte, is a known asset of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a well-documented fact. A 2014 article in The Intercept titled “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man” reveals email exchanges obtained via Freedom of Information Act request between Dilanian and CIA public affairs officers which “show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication.” There is no reason to give Dilanian the benefit of the doubt that this cozy relationship has ended, so anything he puts forward can safely be dismissed as CIA public relations.
SLL is officially a “conspiracy theorist” and believes that anyone who accepts without question the official explanation on anything more complicated than a jaywalking ticket (and even there you should be suspicious) is brain dead. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
Cornell professor, and long-time Zero Hedge friend, David Collum recently appeared on an episode of the Quoth the Raven podcast to talk all things conspiracy. Collum is an economic commentator, chemist, Betty R. Miller Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Cornell University and is known for writing his “Year in Review”, which appears here on Zerohedge at the end of every year.
On the episode, host Chris Irons notes that Collum’s appearance was prompted by a recent Tweet he put out, in defense of being a conspiracy theorist which sparked a massive social media response and outpouring of reactions, both pro and con.
I am a "conspiracy theorist". I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot". If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward".
On the podcast, Collum and host Chris Irons tap into every major conspiracy theory over the last couple of decades, as well as several current events and the world of finance.
Collum Thinks Jeffrey Epstein Could Have Been Working For “Powerful People” And “Setting People Up”
The discussion starts with analysis of the current Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and Collum ponders what “can of worms” could open for Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as a result of Epstein going to trial and documents relating to his indictment coming to light.
“It’s going to be bi-partisan,” Collum says about the Epstein allegations. “Epstein was working for powerful people, to get dirt on powerful people. Epstein wasn’t just a dirtball, he was setting people up,” he continues.
Russiagate was yet another conspiracy theory the alternative media helped prove was a conspiracy fact. Instead of a hollow pejorative thrown by Establishment toadies and their mainstream media, “conspiracy theorist” is becoming a badge of honor. From conspiracy theorist Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:
The phrase “conspiracy theory” is often used by establishment agencies, the mainstream media and useful idiots as a tool to dismiss legitimate evidence or viewpoints that disagree with their predetermined version of events. This method of propaganda was not always as widespread as it is today. The phrase was not “created” by the CIA, but it was in fact weaponized by them in the 1960’s after the assassination of John F. Kennedy with the express purpose of shutting down rational debate.
CIA memo 1035-960, circulated within the CIA in 1967 and exposed through a freedom of information act request by the New York Times in 1976, outlines strategies the agency would use to shut down critics of the Warren Commission Report. Specifically, they suggested the accusation of “conspiracy” with negative connotations attached, predominantly in mainstream books and articles. This was indeed done through the CIA’s many puppets in the media, and the concept of “conspiracy theory” as a pejorative was born.
Through the use of strawman arguments, red herring fallacies and sophistry, the incredible scale of evidence (exposed by investigators like New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison) suggesting the Warren Commission was either corrupt or ignorant in its findings was buried in a flurry of hatchet jobs and hit pieces. And this was the goal, of course; to attack the messenger and silence the truth without having to go through the ugly process of directly confronting the truth.
Muzzling people, even “crazy conspiracy theories” damages the body politic by cutting down on its ability to gather and assimilate information. Muzzling inhibits most people, not just the conspiracy theorist. And sometimes those crazy conspiracy theories turn out to be right. From Kevin Barrett at unz.com:
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Businessby Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying “we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying.
When you watch YouTube videos, the YouTube search engine algorithm displays links to other videos that you are likely to be interested in. These obviously do not constitute “recommendations” by YouTube itself, which exercises no editorial oversight over content posted by users. (Or at least it didn’t until it joined the war on conspiracy theories.)
The second and larger problem is that while there may be near-universal agreement among reasonable people that flat-earthism is wrong, there is only modest agreement regarding which health approaches constitute “phony miracle cures” and which do not. Far less is there any agreement on “claims about 9/11 and other historical events.” (Thus far the only real attempt to forge an informed consensus about 9/11 is the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s study—but it seems unlikely that YouTube will be using the Consensus Panel to determine which videos to “recommend”!)
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.