by Home home
who thought international terrorism is often a project of the
Western intelligence agencies.
Further research indicated even these figures may have been
conservative estimates. A number of polls were conducted in
the wake of the 9/11 attacks, as governments and
institutions sought to gauge public reaction. These varied in
size and methodology but still revealed some interesting
figures.
According to Wikipedia, who claim to have collated these
studies, only 46% of Americans believed Al Qaeda were
28
A Dangerous Ideology
behind the 9/11 attacks, with 29% of the opinion another
group were responsible. 15% in total blamed the U.S.
Government itself.
Nor, it seems, does the passage of time diminish these deeply
held views. A 2003 Gallup poll found that three quarters of
Americans believed the 1963 assassination of President
Kennedy was a conspiracy of some sort. Just 19% believed
the official explanation.[6]
So it seems that conspiracy theorists, far from being a
lunatic fringe, existing in the twilight zone of social
exclusion, are actually a sizeable minority, perhaps a
majority by some measures. They are our neighbours, shop
keepers, teachers and even police officers. They are our
friends, family and colleagues. Just like the rest of us in
other words.
So why on Earth do so many people believe these apparently
incredible theories?
Having looked at many of the explanations offered thus far,
it seems that nearly every researcher and commentator, who
has attempted to answer this question, have, for whatever
reason, avoided the most obvious explanation. As a result,
while many offer extremely plausible rationales, their
arguments are invariably unbalanced.
The well know experimental psychologist, and founder of The
Septic Society, Michael Shermer, who advocates scientific
scepticism, has offered some interesting observations. He
suggests that people tend to believe conspiracy theories in
response to powerful, underlying psychological influences.[7]
Shermer theorises they struggle to manage something called
'cognitive dissonance.' This is a known form of psychological
distress which occurs when people are exposed to two or
more plausible, but contradictory thoughts. It is an
uncomfortable feeling we experience whenever we hold
opposing beliefs, values or ideas.
Shermer suggests that cognitive dissonance will not allow
people to easily accept that a great leader like President
Kennedy can be murdered by a lone crank like Oswald. It
29
A Dangerous Ideology
'feels' unbelievable, so we seek alternative interpretations to
account for this feeling. He wrote:
“Big effects need big causes — we want
balance between the size of the cause and
the size of the effect.
. . . . . . . . . . . JFK was the most powerful
political person on the planet, yet he was
killed by a lone nut, a nobody living on the
margins of a free society. There’s no
balance. To reduce this dissonance and
balance the scales, people have concocted
countless co-conspirators”
Furthermore, he contends that anxiety is a powerful
influence. When events occur which expose our
vulnerabilities and sense of helplessness, we are compelled
to find reassuring narratives, no matter how absurd, that
explain our experience.
“Psychological research also shows that
when people are placed in environments or
conditions in which they feel anxiety and a
loss of control, they are more likely to see
illusory patterns in random noise and to look
to conspiracies as explanations for ordinary
events.”
Shermer also identifies the psychological difficulty he thinks
conspiracy theorists have in managing the concept of chaos
or randomness.
“Another psychological factor at work is that
the mind abhors randomness. We humans
are terrible at understanding chance and
probabilities. We find hidden patterns
everywhere, even in purposefully random
sequences and noise. And yet much of what
goes on in life, in politics and in history at
large is the product of chance and
randomness. By this I do not mean to imply
that JFK was killed by a random event, but
that Oswald acting alone feels like a
30
A Dangerous Ideology
random factor when compared to a vast
conspiratorial cabal plotting to overthrow the
United States government.”
So, whilst Shermer stops short of defining so called 'truthers'
as crazy, he advocates that conspiracy theories emerge as a
consequence of mental health problems. This is a view
echoed by many other researchers, commentators and
academics who have attempted to explain why so many
people accept such apparently preposterous ideas.
Two years after the Kennedy assassination the American
historian Richard Hofstadter suggested that conspiracy
theorists refusal to accept official narratives was bordering
upon delusional. He also noted the strain of unjustified
elitism common to the 'truther:'
“As a member of the avant-garde who is
capable of perceiving the conspiracy before
it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused
public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He
does not see social conflict as something to
be mediated and compromised, in the
manner of the working politician. Since what
is at stake is always a conflict between
absolute good and absolute evil, what is
necessary is not compromise but the will to
fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy
is thought of as being totally evil and totally
unappeasable, he must be totally
eliminated–if not from the world, at least
from theatre of operations to which the
paranoid directs his attention. This demand
for total triumph leads to the formulation of
hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these
goals are not even remotely attainable,
failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s
sense of frustration. Even partial success
leaves him with the same feeling of
powerlessness with which he began, and
this in turn only strengthens his awareness
of the vast and terrifying quality of the
enemy he opposes.”
31
A Dangerous Ideology
This theme of the confused, irrational victim, struggling to
come to terms with overwhelming events and living in fear of
the 'unseen,' is often cited as a reason for conspiratorial
beliefs. Another is the sense of exclusion from the political
mainstream.
The suggestion is conspiracy theorists feel ignored by the
political establishment. They are 'unheard' and their
concerns are not r
eflected by any political representatives
who have realistic hopes of gaining power. Without
representation, these people feel disenfranchised, shut out of
the democratic process and, again, are driven to find
alternative 'stories' that account for this.
This conspiracy theorist's experience of political exclusion,
real or perceived, was described by the Rolf Fredheim
(Research Fellow at Cambridge University.)[9]
“Conspiracy theories are a marginal
phenomenon, a form of disreputable counter-
knowledge, and therefore unlikely to bring
down strong democratic governments.
Nonetheless, a case might be made that
they contribute to a sometimes misplaced
trust in elites. By all accounts, such trust is
at historic lows. Complacency and political
cynicism may be at corresponding highs. As
Hugo noted, the polling data we have seen
tends to suggest a link between conspiracy
theorising and political disengagement.
Trust correlates with irrational suspicion.”
It is also something which Dr Drochon identifies:
“..it is a sense of exclusion that
characterises conspiracy theorists: those
who reject the political system as a whole,
who have a complete distrust of all political
institutions, and those who don’t vote. Or if
they do vote, they vote for extremes.”
Given that research shows the huge number of people who
believe at least one of these conspiracy theories, if we believe
the assertions of researchers like Fredheim, Drochon and
32
A Dangerous Ideology
Hofstadter, we have an immense social problem. Their
findings suggest that a significant number of our fellow
citizens are not only delusional, but lack any sense of
participatory involvement in society. A pretty dangerous
cocktail.
However, before we get tooled up, and start digging defensive
positions in the local park to fend off gangs of marauding,
befuddled, middle-aged fat blokes wearing provocative tee
shirts, I suggest we have a rethink.
Whilst this image of the 'conspiracy nut' raises worrying
fears of chaotic disorder, these attempts to define
conspiracists miss an essential, rather crucial point. They
are all based upon an assumption which, if it's incorrect,
renders these conclusions practically meaningless. The
assumption is that conspiracy theories themselves are all
baseless.
What if there really is evidence to support the theories? That
would change any assessment of the conspiracy theorists'
motivations, wouldn't it?
Suddenly their reasoning, far from being driven by irrational
paranoia, is potentially rooted in awareness of the facts.
Rather than disenfranchised ne'er-do-wells, impotently
scrabbling for a social and political foothold, they could just
as easily be active citizens, fighting for our collective
enlightenment. The 'idiot' becomes the 'critical thinker.'
How can any academic researcher claim objectivity if their
own study is based upon an unsubstantiated presumption?
Namely, that conspiracy theories are without foundation.
Effectively, by excluding the possibility that the conspiracy
theorists have good reason to hold their beliefs, any attempt
to understand their motivation is flawed.
This doesn't mean it should be 'assumed' conspiracy theories
are rational. Assumption has no place in objective inquiry.
However, if the whole premise of your research is to
understand why people hold supposedly delusional beliefs
you do need to be reasonably certain their expressed
opinions are, in fact, delusional in the first place.
33
A Dangerous Ideology
Consider undertaking research into why seagulls choose to
live on precarious cliff edges, while excluding their ability to
fly as a possible contributory factor. You will inevitably
conclude that seagulls are either adrenalin junkies or have
suicidal tendencies. Your conclusion is unavoidably awry.
This is understandable for most of us. We are free to simply
dismiss conspiracy theorists as silly, but leading academics
and paid researchers, who are funded to publish their
results for our information, are required to maintain higher
intellectual standards. Otherwise, what purpose do they
serve? You may just as well ask your mates down the pub.
They should first consider 'truthers' arguments and look at
the evidence they offer, before announcing their idiocy. This
is indivisible from seeking an understanding of their
motivations.
While eminently qualified individuals like Drochon, Shermer,
Hofstadter and Fredheim are a lot smarter than I am, even I
know that academic theories stem from empirical evidence. I
am reasonably certain that disregarding, or deliberately
avoiding, evidence that doesn't fit with your predetermined
conclusion, is not a scientific principle.
I am not suggesting these men, or the other academics who
have come to similar conclusions, have done so. I am saying
I can find no evidence in their 'conspiracy theorist' research
that addresses the veracity, or otherwise, of 'truthers' claims.
The assumption is that they are all entirely without merit,
but no evidence is offered to substantiate this claim.
What we most commonly see in this research is a blanket
acceptance of the official account of events. No consideration
is given to the possibility the accepted narrative is wrong.
The basic facts, underpinning the study, are unknown.
Many government conspiracies have been proven and are
common knowledge. Iran-Contra[10], The Gulf of Tonkin
incident[11] and numerous others, actually happened. The
reality that the public have frequently been misled to further
policy objectives is a proven, historical fact.
Therefore, the assumption that anyone who claims
34
A Dangerous Ideology
conspiracies exist must be some sort of 'defective' is simply
wrong. It is reasonable for people to identify conspiracy as a
potential cause. The observations do not rule out the ‘false
flag’ hypothesis.
The respected author and essayist Christopher Hitchens
addressed this in his essay 'On the Imagining of Conspiracy.'
He wrote:[8]
“… ...you may have noticed that those who
are too quick to shout ‘conspiracy theorist’
are equally swift, when consequences for
authority and consensus impend, to look
serious and say: ‘It’s more complicated than
that.’ These have become standard damage-
control reflexes.”
Writing about the use of the term 'conspiracy theorist' to
discredit people he added:
“One has become used to this stolid,
complacent return serve: so apparently
grounded in reason and scepticism but so
often naive and one-dimensional.”
Hitchens was referring to the pejorati
ve use of the term.
There is no doubt the modern usage is derogatory. When
most of us use the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' we mean
someone who has taken leave of their senses and will believe
any old bunk. These people are fantasist who understand
next to nothing about the 'real world.'
The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, offers a
fairly benign definition of conspiracy theory:
“A belief that some covert but influential
organization is responsible for an
unexplained event.”
I know many conspiracy theorists who broadly accept this.
Though they are quick to point out they are interested in
offering explanations for so called 'unexplained' events.
Generally it isn't their attempts to provide narratives that
account for unexplained world events that annoy us. It is
35
A Dangerous Ideology
their insistence that we consider counter narratives for
events we have already satisfactorily explained which really
wind us up. Wikipedia offers a definition that most of us
would probably consider closer to the mark.
“A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an
event or situation that invokes an
unwarranted conspiracy, generally one
involving an illegal or harmful act carried out
by government or other powerful actors.
Conspiracy theories often produce
hypotheses that contradict the prevailing
understanding of history or simple facts.
The term is a derogatory one”
This is the definition adopted by many of the academic
researchers. The suggested conspiracy is unwarranted,
contradicts our understanding of history and does not
account for simple facts. Yet the legal definition of
'conspiracy' makes no assumption that a suspicion of
conspiracy is unwarranted:
“An agreement between two or more
person's to engage jointly in an unlawful or
criminal act, or an act that is innocent in
itself but becomes unlawful when done by
the combination of actors.”
Surely few of us can disagree with this? The planning of
crimes by two or more individuals is something which
happens all the time. This suggests that a 'conspiracy
theory' is nothing more than a rationale alerting us to a
possible crime planned or committed by a group.
So how come we now use the phrase 'conspiracy
theorist' to mean someone who is making a deranged
allegation? A person who thinks they are smarter than
