Conspiracy theory is a term coined as early as the late nineteenth century but became used much more by the establishment from 1964 to shut down contrary theories to the accepted establishment narrative. The assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) and the consequent attempt by the Warren Commission to put the plot to bed by running stories in the New York Times that challenged other narratives as ‘conspiracy theories’ was the turning point. It became a form of ridicule by the establishment and their mouthpieces aimed at anyone not toeing the line.
A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy. Barkun (Barkun, Michael (2016). “Conspiracy Theories as Stigmatized Knowledge”. Diogenes). writes that conspiracies are “actual covert plots planned and/or carried out by two or more persons”. A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is “an intellectual construct” according to Barkun: a “template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events”. Positing that “some small and hidden group” has manipulated events, a conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history. Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatised mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account.
Currently we have the term going in to overdrive as people challenge government’s responses to Covid-19 both in the ideas that it is a socially constructed mechanism being used to divide or distract populations and in terms of its severity and whether it requires such draconian responses. For many who don’t believe the official account they are labelled negatively. However, for those who challenge the official narrative they too use negative labelling against those who toe the government’s narrative line.
In a democracy in which the freedom to express oneself is supposedly a mantra then both sides should be allowed to hold competing views. However, the problem exists in that one side will be mostly right and the other side mostly wrong. Without the evidence to support a perspective it will seriously undermine their credibility. The pursuit of all data or as much as is possible and then an open minded analysis and evaluation should be enabled. The problem now though is that government’s are reticent to provide all the data/information to their populace and leave themselves open to being accused of being secretive and of having an agenda that is self serving. Democracy becomes the loser.
In essence then the only way to bring information to the senses is to enable all to speak out and then to analyse and evaluate their contributions. However, their is also a duty on those who use their voice to be critical and to accept if they are currently repeating non factual content based upon mere belief. This way we can all learn and be enlightened. Surely the constant chastising maintains the dogma and consequent darkness.
This following short film and interview brings the topic to the surface and offers some very crucial points for consideration.
Let us know you thoughts in the comments section below….
Jason Cridland
