Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorists?
Are We Conspiracy Theorists?
On August 31st 2005, The Guardian newspaper published the following article by Polly Toynbee:
A growing state of mind that needs a firm rebuttal
Conspiracy theories provide easy answers, but rarely much insightConspiracies are profoundly satisfying. They solve every problem, explain everything difficult and give form and shape to things that are otherwise untidily complicated. They provide the easy answer. Why did something bad happen? Because bad people conspired against the good who would otherwise have conquered. Usually, the theory reverses an incontrovertible but (to the conspiracy theorist) inconvenient fact.
Several plots a day arrive in my email. Favourite at the moment are those that explain how Tony Blair organised the London bombs. Cui bono? Why Blair, of course. The bombs rallied the country to his faltering leadership and let him bring in tough new laws against Muslims and their imams. No, I won't bother unpicking this particular madness.
Conspiracy theory journalism also abounds, assuming anything gleaned through a keyhole or leaked document reveals more truth than the big picture staring you in the face. Healthy scepticism easily tips into the conspiracy mindset, where dark motives lie behind everything. It is a worldview that, at its extreme, lets the malevolent feed the gullible such monstrosities as Holocaust denial. If no fact, history or official record can be trusted, then anything might be true and the world ceases to make sense or to be governable by common consent.
It is a growing state of mind that, once it takes hold, spreads easily from small things to big beliefs. It needs a firm rebuttal, even when it invades relatively unimportant-seeming things - such as was Shakespeare really Shakespeare?
Almost from the outset of the article, the definition of 'conspiracy' is narrowed and the term is not being used in a dispassionate context. It could well be said that all theories are 'conspiracy theories', especially those regarding the London bombings; government ministers such as Jack Straw were engaged in postulation about 'al-Qa'ida' attacks long before even the most basic details of the events of July 7th had been released.
The 'Official Story' so far of 7/7 is of a conspiracy by a terrorist organisation called al-Qa'ida and consequently by four British Muslim men. The extent of the involvement of al-Qa'ida has been disputed and contradicted with claims of responsibility, including statements and videos, unauthenticated. The organisation itself is shrouded in mystery, yet as Robin Cook pointed out on the day after the bombings:
"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
The men who are alleged to have committed the atrocity on July 7th are still referred to by the police as 'suspects', yet it has been generally accepted that they are the perpetrators. A suspect only becomes a perpetrator when their guilt has been objectively proven beyond all doubt. In this case, the only trial the four alleged bombers have had is by the media, who in the days following the publication of their identities printed stories about them ranging from the doubtful to the downright untruthful. There is a disconcerting lack of CCTV footage placing these men at the crime scenes, which is very strange indeed when compared to the plethora of moving images released from their visit to London of June 28th.
Yet oddly, when concerns about the lack of solid evidence are raised by those who question the official theory, and when they point out that there seems to be a large amount of conjecture involved in how, why and by whom London was attacked, it is they who are branded with that somewhat patronising, blanket term 'Conspiracy Theorist'. Polly Toynbee illustrates this when she attempts to simplify the reasons why people might suggest alternative hypotheses:
"They provide the easy answer. Why did something bad happen? Because bad people conspired against the good who would otherwise have conquered."
This assumptive assertion could be applied with equal merit to those who unquestioningly believe that Militant Muslims attacked London, without considering any other possible culprits or motives for the attacks. George Bush perpetuated the dogmatic idea of 'bad' people conspiring against the 'good' with the statement he gave on the day of the attacks:
"On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill - those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks. The war on terror goes on."
There are many who would find this statement rather ironic, given the mass slaughter of 'innocent folks' in Iraq by coalition forces. Moreover, one needs to look no further than Guantánamo Bay to see how deeply Mr. Bush seems to care about 'human rights and human liberty.'
It could also be argued that even as shocked and terrified commuters were having their injuries attended to, and loved-ones were desperately trying to contact missing friends and relatives, it was wholly inappropriate to slant the event in order to justify the 'war on terror'.
It is a shame that Polly Toynbee "won't bother unpicking this particular madness" of how July 7th and its ensuing climate of fear, could all too easily be interpreted as extremely beneficial for a Government which seems to view its own citizens as potential enemies by steadily eroding their civil liberties. When making the case for the war in Iraq, Tony Blair expressed a wish for the Iraqis to be able to enjoy the political freedoms enjoyed by the British people. In 2002, he said of anti-government protestors "I may not like what they call me but I thank God that they can." Yet in April 2005, draconian laws were introduced preventing free speech within a one kilometre radius of the House of Commons.
The public may believe that anti-terror legislation does not apply to them and only exists to ensure their safety. However, John Catt, an 80 year old peace campaigner was stopped by police in Brighton in September 2005 under the Terrorism Act for wearing a T-shirt with anti Blair and Bush slogans. The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism".
An 82 year old Labour party member, Walter Wolfgang, was ejected from the 2005 Labour party conference where Jack Straw was giving a speech about Iraq for challenging the claims that Straw made about the reasons for the war. When he tried to re-enter the hall he was stopped by a police officer citing the Terrorism Act. In fact, more than 600 people were detained by police during the Labour party conference under legislation that was designed to combat violent fanatics and bombers - even though none of them was suspected of terrorist links.
It is not a conspiracy that George Bush made the black-and-white declaration "You're either with us - or you're with the terrorists." The unarguable implication of those words is that people are considered to be terrorists if they are anything other than pro-government. So there is, in fact, a very good case for suggesting that 7/7 would give credence to 'tough new laws' not just against Muslims but against the public as a whole.
Polly Toynbee says:
"Healthy scepticism easily tips into the conspiracy mindset, where dark motives lie behind everything."
Leaving aside the argument that 'healthy scepticism' is subjective to each of us who would make a reasonable judgment based on previously held views about world affairs and what we would consider to be `common sense'; an alternative to this viewpoint is put forward by Michael Hasty in his article The Paranoid Shift:
"In his book, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of "conspiracy theory" an immediate "object of ridicule." This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class -- for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls "the media's most effective tool -- silence." But in case somebody's asking questions, all you have to do is say, "conspiracy theory," and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention. On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth."
Later in the article, Hasty gives a few reasons why people might not see these interconnections. The first is that mass opinion is easily manipulated through the exposure to commercial advertising and public relations. Hasty writes:
"The precision of communications technology and graphics; the century of research on human psychology and emotion; and the uniquely centralized control of triumphant post-Cold War monopoly capitalism, have combined to the point where "the manufacture of consent" can be set on automatic pilot."
The second reason, Hasty explains, is that most people are just so thoroughly decent that they find it virtually impossible to believe that others could be so evil as to portray themselves as the 'good guys', while having us believe in a manufactured enemy.
The third explanation is that people, understandably, don't want to set themselves up for public ridicule by holding an alternative view. Judging by the reactions of Polly Toynbee and another Guardian columnist, Marina Hyde, who dismissed actor Charlie Sheen's questions regarding the attacks of September 11th with the staggeringly obtuse phrase "You're insane. Next." these concerns would be well founded.
The final explanation Hasty gives is this:
"Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift."
Campaigner Keith Mothersson gave this reply to Polly Toynbee following her article:
"Instead of lambasting 'conspiracy theories' Polly Toynbee (A growing state of mind that needs rebuttal, Aug 31) would do better to speak out against the conditions which give rise to suspicions of conspiracy.
If the police will allow independent investigators to examine the tube carriages, this could help to establish whether reports, on Guardian on-line (by Mark Honigsbaum) and in the Cambridgeshire Evening News (Bruce Lait story), are true, namely that both Circle Line bombs exploded underneath the carriages.
Likewise, the growing number of people who question the Luton story - both photographs and train times - could surely be refuted if the police would deign to release the CCTV footage from the many cameras at Luton and the various Kings Cross locations (or did all these fail as with the Number 30 bus?).
Polly may prefer to live in a simple world in which all explosions are automatically ascribed to whomever is the official public enemy of this decade, but others of us prefer to remain open to both possible models.
Yes, some religious fanatics murder non-combatants, but in the world we inhabit so do some secret services and those they encourage, organise, dupe.
At a time when the leaders of the UK and US have just conspired to murder tens of thousands by 'making the intelligence fit the policy', and when both Blair and Bertie Ahern have on their desks separate reports of longstanding MI6 and military intelligence involvement in a whole host of murders and frame-ups, its a shame Polly doesn't turn her fire on a) Trial by media leak coupled with b) Destruction or non-disclosure of vital evidence and c) the public pillorying of those such as Dr Mohammed Naseem who dare to hold the West to the standards of openness, reason and evidence it claims to live by.
Whatever our varying assumptions about what probably really happened on that tragic morning, may we invite Polly and your readers to support our Appeal for the evidence to be released concerning the London transport murders of 7/7?"
Those of us who are attempting to establish the facts surrounding the events of July 7th, and who are finding upon close analysis that there appear to be worryingly few, find it surprising that people with views such as Polly Toynbee's regard us and our questions as needing a 'firm rebuttal'. The very expression infers that anybody questioning the lack of verified evidence supporting the alleged bombers' guilt are little more than naughty, wayward children who need bringing into line.
The closest that Polly Toynbee comes to giving an explanation as to quite why a need exists to silence such people is where she says:
"If no fact, history or official record can be trusted, then anything might be true and the world ceases to make sense or to be governable by common consent."
The idea that dissenters of any kind should fall into line because the world might not make sense if there is no common consent among the people is quite an unsatisfactory reason to denigrate 'conspiracy theorists'. Many commonly accepted facts about life and the universe were ridiculed as conspiracies when first proposed.
The separation of facts from theories generally depends on whether or not people are prepared to make the required shift in consciousness to risk having their familiar perceptions of the world altered. Therefore, conspiracy theories by no means provide the 'easy answer'.
The validity of any given theory should never be assumed to correlate with the level of agreement or opposition it might receive, or indeed the state of mind of its architects.
When two or more people plan to commit a crime, there exists by definition a 'conspiracy'.
Therefore, any theory about who did it, or how it was done, is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.
The question is then not whether you are a conspiracy theorist, but for which conspiracy theory you find the evidence most compelling.
