May 29, 2009
The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History
Andrew Roberts in Literary Review:
David Aaronovitch is one of those few Britons who can be referred to as an intellectual without it being pejorative. He is also a master of the art of ridicule, as this reviewer once discovered to his cost at a public debate. This superbly researched, wittily written and eminently sane book explodes conspiracy theories by the dozen, and highlights the psychological disorders from which their promoters often suffer. Best of all, however, it points out how dangerous conspiracy theories can be to society.
Of course, it's perfectly true that sometimes in history there have indeed been genuine conspiracies. The Catiline conspiracy in Ancient Rome, the Gunpowder Plot, the Cato Street Conspiracy to blow up the British Cabinet in 1820, the Bolshevik conspiracy to overthrow the Kerensky government in Russia in October 1917, and the Iran-Contra conspiracy in Reagan's White House in 1985-6 are all cases in point. Generally, however, it is the cock-up explanation rather than the conspiracy that provides the best guide to what really happened. To believe that dark forces control our lives, and have done so for centuries, is a sure sign of weak-mindedness, akin to a belief in UFOs or that one's destiny is affected by the zodiac.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 06:33 AM | Permalink
Comments
Never argue conspiracy when mere incompetence will do.
Posted by: John Garrett | May 29, 2009 9:56:22 AM
What a smug article. The author knows everything; everyone who believes in any conspiracy theory is a crackpot. Lumping all conspiracy theories together as though they are all the same, from fake moon landings to 9/11 is something only a "crackpot" would do. Each deserves to be examined carefully on the evidence. This book will comfort those who do not care to think, a group which, sadly, includes many so-called intellectuals.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | May 29, 2009 10:15:35 AM
The review reads like it belongs in a high school newspaper, in my opinion.
Posted by: Eli | May 29, 2009 11:35:57 AM
Eli,
You're right. I doubt if the level of this "this superbly researched, wittily written and eminently sane book" is any better than the review.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | May 29, 2009 12:10:15 PM
Teasing the crackpots, now that's the way to boost traffic! :-)
Posted by: jean-paul | May 29, 2009 4:16:31 PM
So which conspiracy theories do you believe in, J. Hawkins? We're all dying to know.
Posted by: billy | May 29, 2009 4:37:01 PM
How about: Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran Contra, Enron and WMD/Iraq... for starters?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 29, 2009 6:40:48 PM
Of course, they no longer do nasty things like this (why would they? It's the End of History, after all), but, for our own cozy, invincibly forgetful-of-history amusement, a few more silly conspiracies (on public record):
Lumumba
Allende
Tonkin
Tuskegee
CIA Electroshock
More Experiments
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 29, 2009 7:47:11 PM
Why give space to this pompous talking head? He pontificates without addressing any genuine controversies. Shame on 3Quarks for pushing such official sounding DENIAL on to its readers.
May I suggest Peter Dale Scott's, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America? Or any of James Bamford's books?
Posted by: Steve | May 30, 2009 7:32:42 AM
How is it that, in conspiracy theory naratives, government agencies always operate so much more efficiently and are so much better at covering their tracks, than they are known to be able to do in real life?
Posted by: aguy109 | May 31, 2009 3:17:38 AM
aguy109:
If "The People" are *that* much dumber than their governments, I suppose "efficiency" in the doing of government nasties isn't as necessary as one would like. Eg, widespread voting fraud was outed in the election of Bush2, but the creep got to keep the position anyway. Eg, WMD (the first stated cause for invasion) were not only never found in Iraq but their "evidence" was shown to be fudged and faked, but here we are: years later, still in Iraq. Eg: it's a matter of record that Dick Cheney profited materially (via Haliburton: DICK) from a war he helped shove us into, a (known) conflict of interest that surely rates as one of the most egregious in the history of American government: but Dick got to keep the loot (and the loot keeps flooding Dick's coffers).
Are you aware of the fact that legal definition of "conspiracy" (whether it applies to the mafia, corporate malfeasance or government wrongdoing) isn't a figment of anyone's imagination? A NASTY ONE
The irony being that while I'm a devotee of court records, sober investigative reporting and Empirical Evidence, *you're* drifting in the illogical fog of your own "conspiracy theory narative", in which a fact is only true if you're comfortable with it, apparently. I'm afraid that makes you a bit of a Conspiracy Theorist Nut, old bean.
Now, care to address any of the *factual* cases of conspiracy (some outed decades after the fact) I reference above, and then explain how you think they refute the existence of ...conspiracies?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 31, 2009 4:54:36 AM
Steven,
In defense of Aguy, he is not claiming that conspiracies don't happen, but perhaps just that many more are imagined than do happen, and in many cases, such as the never-ending theories that the US government or Mossad were behind 9/11, part of the narrative is the far-too-efficient and secret functioning of government agencies. I, for one, think that this is a valid observation.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | May 31, 2009 5:01:52 AM
Abbas:
On the other hand, there's rather a deafening silence from conspiracy theory "debunkers" whenever factual, on-the-record conspiracies are mentioned: why is that? The word "conspiracy" suddenly wears a clown nose and a fright wig: why?
Aguy109's comments represent a dangerous (in my opinion) overall attitude and he hasn't bothered to specify the Mossad/911 theory: he's painting with a very broad brush.
Back to the original article:
"This superbly researched, wittily written and eminently sane book explodes conspiracy theories by the dozen..."
If the book also *confirms* (factual, and massive) "conspiracy theories by the dozen", I'll consider it to be something deeper than normative propaganda. Otherwise, it's a little like any number of books/arguments presented by religious fanatics who cite laughable pseudoscience (or instances of ethical lapses amongst real scientists) in order to refute Science itself.
This article is either merely fatuous entertainment, or fatuous entertainment with an agenda, but in a world where very wrong things are being done by people in whom we've placed our trust... a world in which the people most likely to be the victims of these breaches of ethics and violations of human rights should learn to be a bit more clear-eyed, self-educating and bread-and-circuses-resistant... I question the good of it.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 31, 2009 5:53:23 AM
Steve - The WMD story before the Iraq invasion doesn't count as the same kind of secret conspiracy as J Hawkins believes in, it was just governments openly lying to their people, which they all too often do.
You're right in saying that " "efficiency" in the doing of government nasties isn't as necessary as one would like."
The trouble with the mythical conspiracies, like the Jewish 9/11 plot and the 'faked' moon landings, is that they distract attention from the cruder con-tricks that governments perform right under our noses. It may even be the case that there is some secret agency that generates and spreads spurious conspiracy theories, in order to make the public more sceptical towards revelations about real ones.
Posted by: aguy109 | May 31, 2009 9:40:15 AM
Humans base reality on story and myth, and think heuristically rather than critically, and rationalize a fearful and incomprehensible world with conspiracy, mysticism and religion (did you think I wasn't somehow going to get religion involved?).
This is a perfect set of conditions to set up social controls, and scapegoat minorities for problems that fit into these stories and myths.
What Steven is referring to (Lumumba Allende Tonkin Tuskegee CIA Electroshock, etc, are part of the historical record, and based in real experience.
911? It certainly was "convergence of interests" (some even stated beforehand), so a smell test is warranted. However, a simple chemical signature (if, according to conspiracies, explosives were used), would help their cause, and this could very possible be available today, as explosions never have 100% efficiency.
I agree with Aguy, this cripples critical analysis, and is another way of controlling the sheeple (both on the right and left).
Posted by: Dave Ranning | May 31, 2009 10:07:41 AM
Another thing we should consider: if the official explanations of so many of these events (eg, the Warren Commission's Magic Bullet) weren't so absurd, fantastical substitute theories wouldn't have quite so much vacuum to fill. Let's not forget that even the *sanctioned* version of the 9/11 mythos is a conspiracy theory (whether Occam's Razor even really favors it is for another thread on another site).
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 31, 2009 12:08:38 PM
Post a comment