by Home home
Nonetheless, there is no evidence, or reason, to believe there
are disproportionate numbers of such people among those
who question official accounts of terrorist attacks, or any
other event.
In November 2001 George W. Bush addressed the United
Nations General Assembly with the following words:
“We must speak the truth about terror. Let
us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy
theories concerning the attacks of September
the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift
the blame away from the terrorists,
themselves, away from the guilty. To
inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the
cause of terror.” [16]
Let's be clear about what Bush was saying here. He was
firmly suggesting that anyone who questioned the official
story of 9/11 was inflaming “ethnic hatred” and supporting
terrorism. Given the numbers and demographic range of
people who, research shows, question 9/11, the insinuation
that all are violent extremists, who support mass murder,
seems ludicrous. His assertion was not based upon any
evidence.
In 2014, then British Prime Minister David Cameron, also
delivered a speech to the U.N. He equally contended that
‘conspiracy theorist' was analogous with 'terrorist,' though
he chose to lump them in with fascists as well.
To defeat ISIL – and organisations like it -
we must defeat this ideology in all its
forms..........
… .......it is clear that many of them were
initially influenced by preachers who claim
not to encourage violence, but whose world
view can be used as a justification for it. We
know this world view.
45
A Dangerous Ideology
The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a
Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks
were staged..........
We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of
extremism we need to deal with all forms of
extremism – not just violent extremism.
… .............We must proscribe organisations
that incite terrorism against people at home
and abroad. We must work together to take
down illegal online material............we must
stop the so called non-violent extremists
from inciting hatred and intolerance in our
schools, our universities and yes, even our
prisons.
Of course there are some who will argue that
this is not compatible with free speech and
intellectual inquiry.
But I say: would we sit back and allow
right-wing extremists, Nazis or Klu Klux
Klansmen to recruit on our university
campuses? No.
So we shouldn’t stand by and just allow any
form of non-violent extremism. ….......we
need the strongest possible international
focus on tackling this ideology - which is
why here at the United Nations, the United
Kingdom is calling for a new Special
Representative on extremism. [17]
Again there is a clear insinuation that millions of ordinary
men and women, exercising their legitimate right to demand
answers from their governments, are extremists and possibly
terrorists. If you ask any questions, he claimed, you are just
the same as the Islamist extremist Imam preaching violent
jihad to potential terrorist recruits.
Cameron's diatribe was one of the first times we witnessed a
leading political figure suggest that belief in a 'conspiracy
theory' is symptomatic of “right-wing” extremism . Again,
46
A Dangerous Ideology
there is no evidence to support this assertion. Studies show
people labelled ‘conspiracy theorist’ cannot be characterised
by political ideology.
According to Cameron if you question any aspect of the
official account of 7/7 you are a “non-violent extremist”
committing the very real crime of “inciting hatred.” Clearly,
there are senior policy makers who are determined to define
those labelled 'conspiracy theorist' as extremist, with the
potential to become terrorists. Regardless of the fact there is
no justification for such claims.
This enables legislatures to use the new anti-extremism and
hate speech laws to silence its harshest critics. With
imprisonment a strong possibility for those who hold the
wrong opinion.
We should note, there is no ‘ type’ of person who ends up
with the ‘ conspiracy theorist’ label stuck to them. The
government and the mainstream media continually insist
this is the case. If not extremists, they must at least be 'alt-
right' or 'far right' with strong tendencies towards fascism
and anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure.
If you are a regular consumer of mainstream media (MSM)
how could you possibly think otherwise? This message is
continually being repeated and reaffirmed. There is no
deviation from this notion across the entire MSM. It is never
challenged. Whether you favour conservative, liberal or more
left leaning media, the message is clear and consistent. This
uniformity suggests a coordinated campaign. Which
shouldn't be possible if we have a free press.
In reality we don't. A recent study by the campaign group
'Reporters Without Borders' ranked the UK 40th and the U.S
45th, out of 180 countries surveyed, for press freedoms.[18].
However this hasn't deterred the current UK Foreign
Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, from lecturing the world on the
importance of freedom of speech, in which freedom of the
press plays a pivotal role.[19]
Yet the public perception of press freedom in the West is that
we are practically unique in the degree of open discourse we
enjoy. While we anticipate social norms will predominate, the
47
A Dangerous Ideology
role of the press, in a free and open democracy, is to
question authority without fear or favour. So somewhere,
amidst the thousands of column inches and hundreds of
hours of media broadcast every day, you could reasonably
expect at least some opposition to the state doctrine.
Yet there is none. The message that any who question official
accounts of terrorist attacks are extremists is absolutely
maintained. In keeping with government policy.
We can see how this propaganda is intended works when we
look at the words of the former UK Home Secretary, Amber
Rudd.
Speaking in 2017 Rudd was presenting proposals, at the
Conservative Party conference, to strengthen anti-terrorism
legislation. She suggested imprisoning offenders for up to 15
years if they ‘persistently’ viewed or shared ‘extremist
material.’ She said:
I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist
content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda
and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.
……There is currently a gap in the law around material that is
vi
ewed or streamed from the Internet without being
permanently downloaded……This is an increasingly common
means by which material is accessed online for criminal
purposes and is a particularly prevalent means of viewing
extremist material such as videos and web pages.
By continually forging the link between 'conspiracy theory'
and the 'far-right,' the association legitimises government
moves to take down 'conspiracy theory' content. Just as the
Social Media giants are currently doing, at the behest of the
state. Questioning 9/11 is tantamount to declaring your love
for National Socialism. Or so we are told.
Everything we post online is monitored by the intelligence
agencies. Every email, Facebook post, tweet, video comment
and Instagram ‘challenge’ is gathered and analysed by the
likes of the National Security Agency (NSA,) in the U.S. and
Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ,) in the
UK.
48
A Dangerous Ideology
For example, the NSA operate PRISM. This goes to the
source. It intercepts all traffic from the Internet Service
Providers (ISP’s) who connect us to the Internet.[57]
Similarly GCHQ have operated ECHELON since the 1960’s
and their ability to hack the fibre optic cables which connect
the global Internet has been well known for some time.[58]
Unless you use careful encryption and secure private
networks, there is no such thing as Internet privacy. The
MSM hype of alleged data breaches are a nonsense.
Governments, and increasingly private contractors, have
been spying on everybody, buying and selling their data, for
years.
Many will say that people watching beheading videos and
downloading bomb making instructions should be
monitored. This is reasonable. The problem is the people
who use high level data encryption include criminals and
terrorists. The laws targeting what we all watch, read and
listen to online won’t affect them at all. Or do you believe
hardened Islamist terrorist groups communicate and divulge
their planned attacks on Facebook?
Nor, given the capabilities of the world’s intelligence
agencies, is there any need for this legislation to ‘combat
extremism.’ If anyone watches an ISIS recruitment video on
YouTube, the security services will almost certainly know
who, when and where they watched it, in seconds. So it is
legitimate to question why we need to restrict Internet
freedoms at all.
If these laws are both unnecessary and useless what is their
intention? If the ‘extremism’ isn’t ‘terrorism’ what is it? This
will depend entirely upon the government’s definition of
extremism.
Rudd was threatening people who watch these ‘extremist’
videos or read ‘extremist’ websites with incarceration. While
this speech was delivered at a party conference for political
effect, the Conservative government, Rudd represents,
haven't hesitated to give it teethe.
In 2015, two years before Rudd’s outburst, the UK
Government released their Counter Extremism Strategy.[20]
49
A Dangerous Ideology
In the absence of any clear legal definition of extremism, for
their purposes, the British government stated:
“Extremism is the vocal or active opposition to
our fundamental values, including democracy,
the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual
respect and tolerance of different faiths and
beliefs.”
There are so many ambiguities strewn throughout this
suggested ‘definition’ it’s difficult to know where to start.
However, some deeply worrying questions arise.
Firstly, who determines what our 'shared fundamental
values' are? Whose values? When was this decided? Where is
this clarified in law? Are these values fixed, or can they be
altered to suit?
If you question democracy it is, according to the British
government, extremism. So how do we discuss electoral
reform without being arrested? What about highlighting
evidence of vote rigging or suspected gerrymandering? Is that
extremism? If not today it soon could be.
Presumably it could also constitute ‘extremism’ if we
challenge court decisions or criticise the judiciary. A crime to
be punished with up to 15 years imprisonment, if the former
Home Secretary gets her way?
What certainly does question 'our democracy' is to suggest it
isn't working. If you allege it is subverted via propagandist
deception, is led by war criminals who frequently murder
their own populace to achieve political power and social
control, and is so intrinsically corrupt it can never be fixed
through the ballot box, we are told you should be
incarcerated.
No need to advocate violence or suggest criminal acts. Forget
about all the perfectly reasonable alternative democratic and
non-statist models you can suggest. Simply question
'democracy' and the British government intend to bang you
up and throw away the key. They are far from the only
'democratic governments,' to hold this view.
Just as Bush, Blair, Cameron, Rudd and many others
50
A Dangerous Ideology
politicians have claimed, the UK government's Counter
Extremism Strategy insists, without any supporting
evidence, that questioning their perception of our
'fundamental values' is extremism.
Any suggestion the state could be involved in acts of
sponsored false flag terrorism could certainly be construed
as questioning our shared ' values, including democracy.'
The unchallenged myth that any who question official
narratives 'must' be dangerous 'extremists,' dovetails
precisely with the establishment's opinion. The effective 'de-
platforming' of online writers, speakers and content creators,
and the restriction of people’s ability to share anti-
establishment views, is entirely consistent with the
government's strategy. It states:
“We must be careful to only give a platform to
the right people. We will be absolutely clear
about the people and groups we will not deal
with because we find their views and
behaviour to be so inconsistent with our own.”
This Orwellian pronouncement is totally at odds with the
values upon which our democracy is supposedly founded.
However it also reveals the underlying contradiction at the
heart of the state's, and the MSM's, handling of alleged
'conspiracy theory.'
While the speeches of Bush and Cameron are far from the
only rants by political heavyweights attempting to associate
conspiracy theories with extremism, they are notable for the
location of their delivery. Even for national leaders,
addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations is a
big deal.
These occasions are used by nation states to deliver major
thematic speeches. So for Bush in 2001 and Camero
n, 13yrs
later, their big themes included the character assassination
of conspiracy theorists. Why was this of sufficient
importance to warrant such a high profile?
On the one hand we are told that conspiracy theories are all
51
A Dangerous Ideology
nonsense and those who advocate them are basically idiots.
Yet we have world leaders presenting them as some sort of
major threat to international security on the world's biggest
political stage.
If alleged conspiracy theories are all unsubstantiated crap,
surely governments can easily nullify them? Simply discuss
the evidence openly, maybe on major TV debates, and
demonstrate to the voting public what a load of risible
claptrap they really are. Why not allow conspiracy theorists
to write a few MSM columns or host some national radio talk
shows? People will soon determine for themselves that these
people are insane. It couldn't be easier. What's the problem?
However, rather than do the seemingly obvious, nearly every
government in the world has adopted a baffling alternative
path. Censorship and suppression with potential
imprisonment considered a reasonable deterrent to stop
clueless fools talking drivel.
Whether you read MSM red tops or broadsheets, catch up
with the latest MSM news online, watch or listen to
mainstream broadcasts; if you read academic publications or
even government white papers and official strategies, you will
discover endless explorations of both the 'problem' presented
by fake news inspired 'conspiracy loonies' and dissections of
their maladjusted psychology.
However, try as you might, you will never find, anywhere,
any discussion at all about the evidence they claim to inform
their allegedly insane opinions.
This strategy is bewildering, not least of all for the fact that
it's failing. Despite Bush and Cameron's rhetoric, conspiracy
theories continue to abound. As far as the establishment are
concerned, rather than deploying the advantages of the free
speech our democracies supposedly afford, and simply
ridiculing conspiracy theorist's evidence through open
discourse, we are instead going down the fascistic, book
burning route.
We have all been indoctrinated to think that freedom of
speech is a protected right. Probably from the moment you
were able to comprehend, and certainly from the moment
52
A Dangerous Ideology
you first walked through the school gates, you have been
