“You’re being had.” Conspiracy theory. Where do we go from here?

Part 2

This became an arduous, and personal, voyage of discovery of how and when the steadfast logic of ‘correlation does not imply causation’ becomes the emotional ‘correlation is causation’. I hope you enjoy the trip – it was a long one!

My Biases – We all have them, it’s no shame and it’s good to ask others and yourself what yours are. All of my higher education was during the Post-Modern era, where everything was questioned, even science’s claims to truth. I am certainly biased in that way with my way of thinking, some of it good to know, in that everything is being done by humans and humans have biases even the most rational, some of it not so good in that knowing this all things are then up for grabs, nothing is true. Critical Theory from the Frankfort school has been pervasive in this and it is questionable if the good from it has equaled the harm as it offered no clear path to what comes after. I am definitely mainly a realist and materialist and that information and action are on a two way street so I am also dialectic, this leaves little room for the theological point of view. All of this can be said to be philosophically Marxist in nature, open to attack for certain. I like to think I am more rationally than emotionally motivated, but I understand that my emotions, particularly attachments to reason and experience, my likes and dislikes, are never far away. And finally, and most importantly, as it moderated and constrained the more radical aspects of my formal education, is my Atheistic Dutch Calvinist upbringing. I grew up in a small Dutch immigrant family. The question why, was everywhere in our house. Self reliance on the veracity of what we came to know was of great importance to my parents. Belief was not something we were encouraged with as much as coming to know. If my sister and I were asked what we learned that day at school we had to also be ready to answer why this and why that. Of course, finally, we would say because the teacher or the textbook said so and my father would say, ‘How do you know that they, or it, is right?’ So, you can see I come by my questioning honestly, that I have a very personal investment in it and I take it seriously. I do not believe in anything, but I do know things and I don’t know even more. I am flexible enough to accept new knowledge in place of old as more data arrives to either corroborate or negate existing knowledge. I am not bound to tradition, change is good. Reform for the greater good is always viewed as positive change. This sometimes means I can become uncomfortable or make others very uncomfortable in the process of finding answers. Proof is a difficult thing and I take it very seriously. I also think I am more Aristotelian than Socratic in nature. So my motto for this blog makes sense – ‘The more you know, the more you don’t know. The more you believe, the more you don’t want to know’.

Some will read this and say I’m using philosophical, psychological and theoretical terms created by the ‘elite’ to describe who I am and the ‘alternate’ (Alt) people are and that just shows how entrenched I am in the dogma of the current paradigm (see!). Well, there is nothing else to go with and if I read the Alt information properly they also use those same terms, so I feel well empowered to do likewise. They have their own dogma that is for certain, but I shall try mightily to refrain from writing in such a fashion.

The Problem of Proof – to begin we have Proof by Authority. An authority can be an individual or group that has come to be known to have knowledge or expertise so that the group acknowledges them as a leader or leaders of proof and so truth in their area of interest. So, we can have governing authority, be it autocratic or democratic, theological authority, practical knowledge authority in the case of special skills. All of the people in these authorities come with their own prejudices both good and bad. The problem of Proof by Authority is what they say as truth could be false or misleading. This may be because they are not up to date with the latest knowledge, perhaps refusing to acknowledge that for it may challenge the rules they are comfortable and happily enjoying, or they could intentionally lie for their own purposes. Perhaps this could be to maintain for themselves a beneficial dogma, or state of being and authority in perpetuity.

To counter this we have Proof by Science, that is by doing everything and discovering for yourself what is truth and, of course, this too comes with the individuals own prejudices both good and bad. The problem of Proof by Science is that obviously it is not possible for everyone to do or experience it all. Everyone has different skill sets, attitudes, interests and aptitudes, so a couple of things may be attended to, but by far the majority not. The ‘wheel’, as it were, would be reinvented ad nauseam in all areas of endeavour, truly a waste of time where fruitless progress would grind to a halt. It is then self evident what needs to happen. People must defer to authority – that is someone with demonstrably acknowledged superior knowledge, combined with the legitimate and moral use of it. In modern parlance the ‘Go To’ person. But then this leads us straight back to the problem of Proof by Authority and round and round we go. The question then is who, or what, is the authority in any given proof, or proofs, to truth in anything? Has the expert authority been diminished, can we for some reason no longer demonstrably acknowledge superior knowledge? Is the layman on par with the expert? Or has expertise been undermined for ulterior purposes?

Can’t get any more Post Modernist than that! Not to fear! I will get beyond it.

Argument vs Assertion – it’s not enough for the person claiming a ‘conspiracy theory’ to simply assemble some ‘evidence’, loosely organise and interpret that into a narrative fitting their claim and then assert that claim and leave it up to others to prove the claim erroneous. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If the claim and it’s proof is shown to be baseless, fallacious, or illogical it then ends there and it is up to the claimant to explain and prove their position further, not anyone else. It is not good enough to evade the counter argument by claiming anew that their point is misunderstood, or that the counter argument presented is from a totally close minded position, or that the counter argument is blind to the proof given. Used this way logical argument ceases and simply becomes contradiction between the two sides. Interestingly enough most Alternative (Alt) or conspiracy theory claims very quickly turn into lame contradiction with the blame frustratingly and inexplicably laid at the feet of those disputing the claim of the conspiracy theorist. But then maybe that is the point, that all conspiracy theorists want to do is create frustration, that in itself may be smug victory for the Alt crowd.

Theory vs Fact – However, there are times when proof is adequately presented and a claim of a conspiracy theory can be presented. But, as it’s name implies, it is only a theory. It’s not a demonstrable fact, it is like any working theory, an idea, a possibility within many possibilities. The problem arises when a theory is all that is required and that it somehow then becomes a fact. It is grossly disingenuous to promote it this way. It’s nowhere close to fact. This applies in all areas of discipline in human thought and endeavour. For a theory to become fact a much higher level of proof, far beyond circumstantial, is required to make it a certainty. As there has always been there are plenty of theories out there, and as normally happens, some will be proven true, most will fall by the wayside, but in the interim there are others maliciously being promoted as ‘truth’ that do nothing but obfuscate and inflame the normal course of things. And, again, this may be the sole intent of the Alt view.

Conversation or not – There are those with whom a very constructive conversation regarding alternative interpretations of events and circumstances allow for the give and take of reasonable argument to be had. These conversations are always enlightening for both sides and are useful in making sense of our world through fruitful argument. We need that kind of conversation desperately to define truths, find areas that need more work and, in the end, enhance progress. However, those that are enraptured by some of the conspiracy theory sirens are seemingly beyond hope, and seem to be highly susceptible to suggestion or are something similar to those enthralled within the Stockholm syndrome. It seems some are not being able to think for themselves, let alone be a critical thinker at crucial moments, these folks are the ‘enraptured true believers’ holding their ‘inside knowledge’ as some form of witch’s wand that almost theologically deflects reason and logic. It’s as if reason and logic are themselves not to be trusted, they are the enemy. You believe or do not, there is no conversation, no sharing other than one way. These folks never respond fully to questions or explanations, only with vague ‘you will see’, ‘time will tell’, ‘if you win nothing changes, if I win you won’t even know it’. Rank with manipulation, passive aggression and petulance they often belligerently accuse unbelievers (the reasonable and logical thinkers) as having ‘their heads in the sand’, that is ignoring the ‘truths’ as has been presented, not the real and logical reason semi-desert dwelling ostriches in search of water put their heads below ground level. Or accusing a skeptic of ‘projection’, which is in itself a curious thing as saying this of someone else is actually about the accuser not the accused. To be charitable here, these folks mean well as what they say comes from the heart, no question, but that is the problem as their position is emotional not rational, it is simply belief versus reason. And having one’s own beliefs challenged is often emotionally difficult causing anger and resentment.

Reason, logic and proof – Of course this critique you are reading, if you have even gotten this far, will be seen as being from one who has been fully indoctrinated by the ‘powerful elite’ conspirators. That I am their mouthpiece. Well, perhaps so, but I still cannot negate out of hand another’s belief, what you believe is simply that, what you believe and I can do nothing about that, it’s yours. But, I can address how one comes to that belief. In that sense then, much of what conspiracy theories claim, the burden of proof has not been met, not by a long shot. For those that give no proof, or at best circumstantial, I refer to both Occam’s Razor – when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions, and Hitchens Razor – that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Research has been done in some cases, the facts accumulated and are duly noted, however, most if not all these facts are circumstantially arranged to fit a pre-existing story, a framework. The logic dictum ‘correlation does not imply causation’ has been replaced by ‘correlation does imply and in some cases ‘correlation IS causation’, facts and known events are woven in a way as to appeal to a more visceral and emotional revelatory ‘Ah ha’ moment seemingly proving a pre-existing belief that something sinister (devilish?) is the cause. Extremely controversial or deeply held beliefs regarding justice are often crucial for the emotional response to overwhelm the critical and logical. Those who ask the ‘yes, but’ question are summarily dismissed and their own morals questioned, it is a form of peer pressure, and to not also believe leaves one exposed to being ostracized, a horrible and uncomfortable feeling for most people, social beings that we are. And in a strange reverse psychology this could be one of the reasons ‘true believers’ behave as they do as they themselves feel ostracized from ‘main stream’ beliefs. Some of them need only a nudge, read one website article or watch one You Tube video or one Tweet, to fall head over heels at the seeming revelation of the ‘truth’ they have found. The slightly more skeptical do their research, their due diligence encountering very sophisticated near advertisements by the Alt view, and come to the same conclusion, they are being had by greater behind the scenes powers.

Who runs the show? – We have always known that greater more skillful people come to lead other people, the leader and the led, the captain and the team. We learned this as children in the playground, developed in the school yard and act on it in adulthood. We have tried to discover what makes good ones and what makes bad ones, our experience informs us. These leaders with the same self serving interests have sometimes gathered together with other leaders to control and manipulate the greater society, to become known as politics. And often there are bitter rivalries between the leaders causing turmoil among the led as they support one of the other. It’s never been a secret, the process of leading has always been too big to be secret and the vast majority agree with it, if only tacitly. For the most part it has been seen by the greater group that these ‘in the know’ people have done what has also been in the general interest, and this applies whether leadership is autocratic or democratically determined. Turmoil comes when these two, the greater group and leadership, can no longer be reconciled as being beneficial to one another becoming instead antagonistic. Overthrows, coups, civil wars and revolutions follow, as thunder follows lightning. This has been largely the main topic of story, myth and history, the ebb and flow of differing opinions within the rational and emotional life of humans. The general society has fought back and the elite have come to know that they can’t push too far and stay elite without giving the general society some concessions, some measure of control. Not to do so leads to revolutions against leadership of one kind or another. There is much nuance I have left out here, but suffice to say democracy is such a concession in politics and unionism in business, both are efforts of the weaker majority to control excesses of the stronger minority. All of this is what is history. Of course, post-modernists couch this all under power, who has it, who doesn’t, how is it manifested, controlled, used and abused. Both the mainstream and Alt conspiracy theorists view power as crucial to their positions.

There’s PLENTY of manipulation to go around – I can’t help but think conspiracy minded people are themselves being manipulated by the seemingly polar opposite group they claim runs our current world and they say I am being manipulated by. Yes, I’m going here, but only for a moment. I also can’t help but put it into the dialectical framework set out by Marx, it seems the most reasonable, that there are thesis and anti-thesis at play here. The thesis being the ‘mainstream’ paradigm and the anti-thesis being the ‘Alt’ or conspiracy theorist paradigm. Both claiming the other to be fiction. I’m not sure it’s a situation Marx had ever envisioned in his wildest dreams. In my research on this topic I came to think of how much the anti-thesis conspiracy theories resembled the philosophical position of the anarchist. I came upon the term ‘small-a anarchism’ where the same tactics are used but not for the same goal as classical Anarchism.

Small-a Anarchism – From Wikipedia this slick description – “Contemporary-era anarchists have been engaging with various grassroots movements that are not explicitly anarchist but are more or less based on horizontalism, respecting personal autonomy, and participating in mass activism such as strikes and demonstrations. The newly coined term “small-a anarchism”, in contrast with the “big-A anarchism” of the classical era, signals their tendency not to base their thoughts and actions on classical-era anarchism or to refer to Kropotkin or Proudhon to justify their opinions. They would rather base their thought and praxis on their own experience, which they will later theorize.”

This then required a more defined look at Anarchism, again from Wikipedia,

“Anarchism and the state

Objection to the state and its institutions is a sine qua non of anarchism.[129] Anarchists consider the state as a tool of domination and believe it to be illegitimate regardless of its political tendencies. Instead of people being able to control the aspects of their life, major decisions are taken by a small elite. Authority ultimately rests solely on power, regardless of whether that power is open or transparent, as it still has the ability to coerce people. Another anarchist argument against states is that the people constituting a government, even the most altruistic among officials, will unavoidably seek to gain more power, leading to corruption. Anarchists consider the idea that the state is the collective will of the people to be an unachievable fiction, due to the fact that the ruling class is distinct from the rest of society.”

One can readily see a problem here with hardline conspiracy theorists as they, in the main, wish to strengthen the state against the New World Order of global government and everything that represents to them, hence the small-a anarchism. To ‘free’ themselves from one they must bind themselves to the other. They do indeed walk a fine line and so fall prey to logical inconsistencies that are summarily dismissed by them as unimportant. And here in lies their dogma.

Mind set – The Alt tendencies of preying on the good graces of others who are more open to change, global in their outlook, intelligent, logical, flexible, tolerant and accepting. These are weaknesses in their eyes, vulnerabilities to thorough manipulation by another grander entity, the ‘deep state’. The Alt’s innate conservatism, even authoritarianism, steeped in unchanging and unwavering tradition reveals their fears leading to the rejection of science, as an agent of change, leading to flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and the like – emotion over reason. The Alt’s ability to deny what is obvious is a truly wondrous act of mind. To discard and dismiss rational and logical science is an odd path, but not as odd as dismissing practical science, that is day to day experience. Doubting what we come to learn by experience, what is hot to touch or cold, smell good or bad, taste good or bad, what is dangerous and what isn’t, that vaccinated children survive disease.

Is that not the epitome of post-modernism and critical theory? And as discussed earlier, these give no solution only more discomfort regarding perceived reality, everything is doubted, nothing is as it seems and that ambiguity is just too much. This leads, then, to following instead contrived prophecy whether religious as in biblical prophecy, or historical as in Nostradamus, or supernatural aliens, or even scientific towards AI replacing humanity, seems to give comfort against the sometimes cold harsh reality that in most things we just don’t know and fantasy somehow seen and transformed into fact becomes preferable over the reality of not knowing, the heart over the mind. Conspiracy theorists feed on this uncertainty, this angst. And our very democracy gives them the platform to voice their opinions though they say it works against them.

Don’t forget this kind of thing is what some people want – The discord, the incremental and total destruction of the ‘old régime’ run by the ‘elites’ (people not like them) – constitutions, checks and balances of power, elections, democracy itself. The enemy within. The anarchist as discussed earlier. The very things they claim the ‘other’ side is attempting to do is what they want done. Many are emotionally attracted to this for having decided the current system in some way or another has failed them and continues to fail them. Not being able, or being incapable, to find a rational and perhaps painful introspective reason for this failure, largely because then it would be their own failing, reasons from outside are sought. Something greater must be accountable for these feelings of hurt, loss and betrayal, of what is real and not real. And there can’t be much more hurtful in this life than not being taken seriously by the vast majority of thinking people.

Here then are the types of conspiracy theory (from Wikipedia) listed below which runs the gambit of such thinking quite well. Certainly feel free to follow the links for further explanations.

“ Walker’s five kinds

Jesse Walker (2013) has identified five kinds of conspiracy theories:

The “Enemy Outside” refers to theories based on figures alleged to be scheming against a community from without.
The “Enemy Within” finds the conspirators lurking inside the nation, indistinguishable from ordinary citizens.
The “Enemy Above” involves powerful people manipulating events for their own gain.
The “Enemy Below” features the lower classes working to overturn the social order.
The “Benevolent Conspiracies” are angelic forces that work behind the scenes to improve the world and help people.[32]

Barkun’s three types

Michael Barkun has identified three classifications of conspiracy theory:

Event conspiracy theories. This refers to limited and well-defined events. Examples may include such conspiracies theories as those concerning the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, and the spread of AIDS.[33]
Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church.[33]
Superconspiracy theories. For Barkun, such theories link multiple alleged conspiracies together hierarchically. At the summit is a distant but all-powerful evil force. His cited examples are the ideas of David Icke and Milton William Cooper.[33]

Rothbard: shallow vs. deep

Murray Rothbard argues in favor of a model that contrasts “deep” conspiracy theories to “shallow” ones. According to Rothbard, a “shallow” theorist observes an event and asks Cui bono? (“Who benefits?”), jumping to the conclusion that a posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly influencing events. On the other hand, the “deep” conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out evidence. Rothbard describes this latter activity as a matter of confirming with certain facts one’s initial paranoia.”

And thus correlation becomes causation in this world.

Christopher Hitchens described conspiracy theory as the “exhaust fumes of democracy”:[72] the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.” Our society is safe enough, big enough, we live well enough, are fed enough, are educated enough, healthy enough and free enough to critique and quibble the finer points and draw conclusions that fit our desires, passions and even imagined realities. As in Pizzagate, it is democracy’s freedom that makes room for the allegations of the conspiracy theorists. And many of the first promoters, even the most die hard, of the conspiracy theory recanted their position when the facts overwhelmingly proved them wrong (see Sources below for link to more info). This is true of the currently ongoing conspiracy theory of Bill Gates and Covid-19 (see Sources below for link to more info). Some lost souls however continue these lies as truth. An unintended consequence of democracy, but in the end democracy corrected.

Anti-conspiracy theory conspiracy theory … It seems to me the ‘Alt’ powers, who ever they may be, want us to think in vague conspiracy theory. It’s the easiest thing to do, and is tremendously appealing to those not feeling as successful in the mainstream as others. A ready made pool of potential ‘true believers’. After all to them it’s exciting, makes one feel involved without having to know too much and as a bonus having ‘special’ knowledge and insight over others, that there is some ulterior counter design to the ‘obviously’ flawed system in place for generations. There must then be some background Grande reason for not being as successful in this world as one would like (aside from ability, education, desire, need) some design that illustrates all of our fears, ill health, loss of religion, loss of rights, loss of place and status, that the one scientist out of a thousand who denies global warming is occurring, can be so easily identified with and so must be the one that is correct. The more preposterous and counter to the current paradigm in all areas, science, medicine, politics, economics, the better. All the woes, errors, disasters in the world can be lain at the feet of the current masters, not nature, not cosmic coincidence and certainly not slow and meticulous science. This causes unrest and doubt, both of which interestingly counter complacency. Perhaps, if there is any conspiracy, it is the manipulation of these people who readily believe the doubt cast and the conspiracy promoted, who are easily fooled to think they have the answer and are controlled by modern internet savvy trolls. To go one step further, could it be that the Great (mainstream) Elite are using and manipulating Alt folks, the malcontents, to give some kind of angst fuelled balance to our world, to in fact counter complacency among the majority and drive progress on? Is conspiracy theory then nothing more than the layman’s postmodernist expression of doubt? This is my anti-conspiracy theory conspiracy theory.

Where do we do from here then?

For certain a thing for all of us to do is refrain from enormous emotional leaps of logic. The old nugget ‘if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t’ is quite appropriate. If one out of a thousand experts spins a contradictory tale it should give one immediate pause as to why this is and not immediately believe the dissenting tale as truth. It is not possible for the 999 others to conspire against the one. To what end? It is not reasonable to assume that they did.

One must be always cautious of the devious emotional use of information. There are infiltrators doing their best to sow misinformation of intent by making claims that some groups are ‘not what they appear to be’. As much as information can be used for good it can also be used for bad. Not long ago it was a lack of information and you had to be wary of mirages, then it became deciding whether to see the forest or the trees, now it’s a blizzard so dense it’s hard to see your hand in front of your face. Everybody and every outlet has a point of view and purpose, always has had and shouldn’t be a shock. Combing through the tangle that is social media now is an arduous task. And, like anything else, some people are overzealous and question absolutely everything, the majority question some and some not at all. Wormtongues abound who try to affect action upon these people in the political sphere through visceral emotional responses to ideas. Think Tanks and Action Committees as well as online ‘truth’ groups all work in this manner. In the economic sphere, millions of dollars are spent by advertisers to get supposedly rational consumers to emotionally respond to ads and spend accordingly. Much is being done through game theory mathematics to understand, identify, predict and psychologically manipulate human activity, both large and small group. It is upon this daunting backdrop of intentional and unintentional, rational and irrational, that interests vie for our attention. How to as painlessly and easily as possible get your comb through the tangle of information to make some form of order? What conditioner can be used to help accomplish this?

Ideas and thoughts are just that, nothing more. Theories, likewise, are just theories. It took many years for Newton’s and Einstein’s theories to be verified as fact. And even then they are true in very narrow ways leading others to theorize why that and to further theorize in other ways. A theory is not truth, or fact, it is a theory. So, if a theory, or claim, is made and publicized, it is upon the theorist, the claimant, to provide their proofs. These must be logical and reasonable and each one of them testable for their own veracity. And here, then, ‘correlation is not necessarily causation’ must be studiously in the forefront of the mind and tested among the proofs. If the claimant is merely speculating as to cause then that is all that can be expected, we all have fanciful thoughts – woulda, coulda, shoulda’s as it were. And without consistent proof are dismissed immediately with a smile. However, if the claimant maintains that their theory is the truth, then it should be immediately taken to task. Here both Occam’s and Hitchens’ Razors can be fully used. Rigorous testing and observation of the proofs is followed and until undeniably the theory becomes fact. That is until new information arrives and therein for many lies the frustration, they long for unchanging definitive truth so they don’t have to think or worry about it any more. The fact that they uncomfortably do leaves them vulnerable.

Conspiracy theory runs counter to all this, it is the ‘alternate logic’ path. It seeks to expose the perverse ‘Grand lie’ to show there is a ‘devilish’ plan afoot that attempts to explain that this uncomfortable feeling is somehow intentional. It is purely emotional in context, it claims underlying intent by nefarious groups to selfishly manipulate people, the darkness, and offers up vague ideas of ‘the light’. It often follows religious methodology of belief rather than the scientific path of knowledge. It’s claims are intricate, complicated, with many twists and turns of the facts to support their beliefs to suit their prophesy. Correlation is causation in their view and is just as likely as not. Like the Jesuits of old, the shock troops of Catholicism, conspiracy theorists seek to root out heretics and infidels, to show the true ‘divine’ path. It’s an old method.

A critique of post-modernism and critical theory is its lack of theology, being purely logical and scientific, which for some is confusing, seemingly constantly in flux and uncomfortable, not suiting their own natures, so conspiracy theory is fixing that. Conspiracy theory may well be the ‘exhaust fumes of democracy’, but I would go a step further and say, in the present context, it is also an unintended consequence of post-modernism and critical theory. It is a struggle between those who can live with uncertainty, ambiguity and change versus those who cannot. In a curious and obvious contradiction it is a secular religion, if you can imagine such a thing. For conspiracy theorists it’s a struggle for hearts not minds, from emotional discomfort to comfort, a move from uncertainty to certainty, from logical science and knowledge to belief, a modern theology.

Sources

Atheistic Dutch Calvinism