We’ve all been there. 1.30am, drunk as a skunk at somebody’s house-party, trying to locate the last pack of rizlas. When suddenly somebody pipes up with “but you see, it was all planned by the American government. I watched this video on the internet that proves 9/11 was a conspiracy”. And then the shit hits the fan. The room divides. On one side stand the Angels; guided by the light of reason they seek to point out the folly of said Conspiracy Theory. On the other stand the Believers; they knowthe world is run by a sinister group or Americans/Jews/Lizards from Mars, and they implore you to see “the truth”.
Here are some thoughts on Conspiracy Theory in general. Nothing too high-powered, just some reflections on three that seem to have too much in common (oooh, perhaps it’s a conspiracy?!)
The Holocaust and the Jews who control the World
In general, holocaust deniers are just anti-Semites who make a half-hearted attempt to present themselves as respectable, impartial academics. Most ordinary people don’t give them any time, except perhaps the odd heretical thought that says “perhaps they have a point, or else why would people keep saying it?”
Of course, the answer to that last question is that they keep saying it because they are all neo-Nazi anti-Semites who want to trick people into doubting Holocaust I so they can try and facilitate Holocaust II (which would be bigger and better, because this time not only would no Jews survive, but also nobody would even remember they’d ever existed, thus coming a glorious 180 degrees and no longer needing to deny the holocaust! Beautiful, really.).
But one ugly thought that does keep doing the rounds is that ‘Jews Control The World’, or in it’s slightly more sophisticated guise; ‘Jews, mostly from or connected to Israel, Control the American Government, which Controls the World’. This is a thought i find surprisingly common, even in only embryonic or un-thought-out form. Which leads nicely on to….
9/11 Was a Conspiracy by the American Government (which may or may not be controlled by Jews)
We all know this one only too well. 9/11 had to be a fake, because the temperature at which jet-plane fuel burns isn’t enough to melt the super-structure of either Twin Tower, the damage done to the pentagon was more like a missile than a crached plane, fighter jets weren’t scrambled as protocol said they should have been etc etc yadda yadda. Now as it happens, all those “facts” are in fact not; but, unfortunately, pointing out to Conspiracy Theorists that ‘the Internet’ and assorted wackos sitting in their mother’s basements are not reliable sources of information never does the trick. Even getting the hard facts out and sticking them up their noses doesn’t do the trick. Why? Because they are convinced by a crazy logic that informs them that regardless of facts, the US government must have planned 9/11….
…because It’s All About Oil and Money (IAAOM). That’s right, the US government faked 9/11 – the worst (non-state directed) terrorist atrocity in human history, where over 3000 US civilians died, which threw the global and US economy into chaos - because it wanted an excuse to invade middle eastern nations so as to grab oil (and on some stories, to do the bidding of the Masters in Israel).
Which leads nicely to our next case…
Srebrenica
A less well known, but equally virulent conspiracy theory is that the Serb attrocities at Srebrenica and the wider Serbian genocide - comparable to the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide in all but scale – did not take place and were faked by Western governments. This ties into a larger theory that there was no ethnic cleansing in the Balkans at all in the early 1990s. No, rather than pay attention to witness testimonies, the reports and footage provided by on-the-spot journalists, or thousands of reputable academic sources, it makes far more sense to say that Western Governments invented a crisis in the Balkans so they could bomb innocent Serbia, thus fuelling the military-industrial complex, and establish new markets for Western Capitalism to expand into. Once again, IAAOM (though perhaps less about oil this time).
But if this doesn’t already sound completely bonkers, hopefully some brief, selective remarks will make it apparent, which is that the internal logic of these conspiracy theories is utterly, utterly insane.
Firstly let’s spell out the logical stupidity of these claims. If 9/11 was orchestrated by the Americans in order to acquire oil and to stomp all over the middle east – presumably to secure its own economy - why do something that massively destabilises its own economy? And if it is alleged that the destablisation was a ’short run cost’, then there still remains the question, why even bother with the pretext? As far as i can remember, the US has never bothered to provide much justification for most of its over-seas ventures, so why start now, and why start with such a massive, and in many was self-defeating, project? The US simply didn’t need 9/11. And don’t say that it needed the pre-text so as to invade ‘oil rich’ Afghanistan. As far as i can tell, Afghanistan itself is not particularly oil rich. Objectors at this point usually point to its neighbours who are, and cite an American project to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. But surely it would have been easier to build such a pipeline without destroying what little infrastructure that country had, and cutting a deal with the Taliban. Fair enough, the Taliban didn’t want to cut a deal….that’s why they bombed the Twin Towers…but wait! You can’t use that line, because allegedly the US did 9/11! See how the logic pulls apart? As with Iraq, the US was going to invade it regardless of 9/11 - nobody of policy-making or directing importance seriously maintained had any connection between Iraq and 9/11 before or after 2003 – and even the Bush administration now basically admits it was an all-round, balls out cock-up.
As for Srebrenica, well it’s just madness. As a general rule, markets are far more efficient during peace than during war…unless you want to sell weapons, in which case there has to be a war….in which case the charge that ‘the West’ faked it all is a little inconsistent with IAAOM. Again, the logic pulls apart. To ram it home: if the West did everything for money, and faked the Balkans crisis, why not intervene in 1990/1, rather than waiting for minimum intervention in 1994, and allowing Srebrenica to take place in 1995? It it was all a fake, why wait 5 years to intervene ‘properly’ (if the intervention can be termed thus)?
Secondly (and more importantly, and less open to pedantic little counter-moves regarding the details of given theories), conspiracy theories are not, contrary to what their proponents will tell you, the grim, stark truth that we should accept once the wool has been pulled from over our eyes. Quite the contrary in fact.
What links the above three cases of conspiracy theory is (at least) one thing: that sombody or some group controls the world, to the point where then can orchestrate events on the scale of 9/11 or the Balkans war, or the Jewish Holocaust, or Srebrenica. That’s supposed to be a super scary thought. But it’s not. Because if the US (or the Jews, or ‘the West’) controls the world, then it’s a pretty safe place. Sure, they may blow up a few thousand civilians once since 1945 (when US hegemony is usually assumed to have begun), but on the whole, as they control the world, they will ensure that western civilisation goes on largely untouched. Even if that means faking a war here, and killing some far-off towel heads and sand-niggers there.
Here’s a much scarier thought. The world is controlled by nobody; it’s all a big mess. Trying to direct that mess are some seriously incompetent people. They are so incompetent they failed to see all the warning signs of 9/11, to anticipate that the way Afghanistan was invaded would be a disaster in the short and long run, and failed to foresee that that Iraq would become the biggest disaster since Vietnam, and will possibly be a far more serious one considering its effects on the growth and capabilities of radical Islam. Alongside those incompetents are a set of crazed fundamentalists all vying for influence and control. On the one hand you have the obvious candidates; bin Laden, Kim Jong Il etc, but on the other you have (a minority of)Zionists in Israel clammering for blood and describing the West Bank as “a people-less land for a people without a land”, but also the (i think somewhat waning) influence of the Christian Right in American politics, as well as cynical, ruthless manipulators, for example Putin in Russia who seems to me nothing but a re-incarnation of Soviet leadership. These people are seriously deluded, intollerant, self-assured, spread around the globe and all competing for control and power. None of them has all the control or all the power; they’re all trying to get it, and to a large extent they don’t care how.
Some of them want control for nobler aims than others; for all Bush and Blair’s failings, i’d rather live in a world they control – or have the most influence in – than one run by Iranian Ayatollahs; only a bizarre cultural relativist (or a muslim fundamentalist) would think otherwise. But the brute truth of the matter is that nobody controls what’s going on, especially not Americans or Jews. If they did, we could all sleep a little safer in our beds at night; for this supposed all-controlling world conspiracy is a surprisingly benevolent one, at least regards we the privileged Westerners.
When it’s spelled out like that, i rather suspect that many conspiracy theory adherents might want to re-think their positions. For all his supposed bravery and ability to stare unflinchingly at the cold hard truth, the conspiracy theorist is simply wrapping himself in the security-blanket of knowing everything is – quite literally – under control, and so there’s no real need to worry.
But one thing that the world right is certainly not under right now is control.
For an amusing cartoon, and a wonderfully simple demolition-job of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go here for a giggle.
14 March, 2007 at 8:52 pm |
I am in general agreement with what you’ve said, but not on how stupid you think the various world leaders are. I think they’re generally pretty smart, and the idea that Bush, Blair, Putin, etc. are all bunch of incompetant idiots doesn’t seem right. I mean, of course the US didn’t orchestrate 9/11. But it didn’t happen because Bush is thick, it happened because it is very, very hard to prevent terrorist attacks. It was totally unanticipated and out of the blue; if the government or security service had suspected it, they’d have done something about it.
On Iraq, I disagree a bit. It basically was about oil and money. Why else would they invade? They clearly knew that they’d fuck everything up,
; the various advisory boards, intelligence services and everyone else said that constantly in the run up to the war. You have to be more than thick, you’d have to be completely insane not to listen. The fact is that invasion was very, very lucrative, so they didn’t care about loss of human life. No conspiracy theory in this at all. People do stuff for money even when they know lots will get hurt. It sucks, but some people are like that.
14 March, 2007 at 9:24 pm |
“It was totally unanticipated and out of the blue; if the government or security service had suspected it, they’d have done something about it.”
- Sadly this seems in fact not to be the case. The scandal of 9/11, exposed by the report of 9/11 Commission, is that the warning signs WERE there; the homeland security forces were unbelievably unrepsonsive to warnings they received in the weeks preceding 9/11. Unlike 7/7, where the British security forces really couldn’t do anything, the tragedy of 9/11 is that American security forces were complacent (they’d not had all that much to do since 1993) and let it slip through the net. In the post 9/11 world it’s highly unlikely that can happen again, especially in the States, but the evidence is that Bush himself was warned of a possible attack a couple of weeks before 9/11, and ignored it.
But you’re right, i’ve been a bit crass in painting them as ‘incompetent’, though i think that’s still true to an extent, especially regarding Bush. Perhaps ‘out of touch’ captures it better.
Re: Iraq – if it’s all about Oil and Money, where’s the Oil and Money? If they knew it was going to be a fuck up, how come they did it anyway – the fuck up *includes* potential economic gains.
“The fact is that invasion was very, very lucrative” – the evidence seems to be against you there. The US government remains in record-setting budget deficits, and expenses on the war in Iraq have contributed to it considerably. There’s no new markets been set up in the chaos of post-invasion Iraq. You might want to point to the lucrative contracts issued to (mostly) US firms, but for as long as the insurgency continues, those contracts are still failing to turn a profit back home for US businesses.
Now, you might want to say in response that the US *in advance* of the invasion thought (wrongly) that it would be profitable. Perhaps they did. But if they knew it would be a fuck-up on every level, which is the only thing we can assume without concluding the US government is made up completely of morons, then it seems odd to say they simultaneously thought it would turn a profit.
My theory is actually this: they didn’t think it would be *such* a fuck-up, and they did think *some* profits would be turned. But what was really driving Bush and co was the culmination of what is broadly termed neo-conservative hard-line thinking on foreign policy. That – roughly – the way to be a strong, secure international power (and from this profit/wealth probably will flow, but also “freedom”, whatever they take that to mean) is to go round stomping on opposition before they can do anything to you, sending out a clear message to all others thinking of trying it on that it’s not worth it. Hence the ‘doctrine of pre-emptive action’, as we might now want to term it. Combine this with a fierce patriotism and a somewhat naive over-conviction in the abilities of American technology and American military might, and it becomes easier to ignore the experts telling you it’s bound to be a fuck-up.
For me, money and profit may well come into it, but alone that’s not enough (and it’s far too easy an answer; the mantra ‘it’s all about oil’ is just so easy to buy into it has to be too good to be true) to explain the facts. I think recognising a deep (if ultimately mistaken, as a post-Iraq world seems a testament to) commitment to a particular doctrine/dogma about how international relations should be conducted – born of the humiliations of Vietnam, a deep uncompromising patriotism, a tendency to pay attention to sub-par intellectuals (Huntington, Russett, Fukayam especially) who say what the neo-conservatives wanted to hear thus seeming to give them credence, amongst other things – goes a lot further, in conjunction with analyses of power-balances in the middle east, profit motives, the demands of the US people to seek revenge and a whole host of other factors, than simply using the tired, easy battle cry of “it’s all about money and oil”.
Money and oil do come into it, but in the short run even the most pig-headed Neo Con could recognise that far more oil could be gotten out of Iraq (and the Middle East generally) if Saddam was kept quietly in place.
One last point: if it really is all about Oil and Money, why didnt the US invade Iraq in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War? Why wait until 2003? As far as i can tell, in 1991 levels of greed and demand for oil were comparable to 2003. What definitely changed was Republican attitudes to how foreign policy should be conducted. There were no *Neo*-conservatives in 1991. There were plenty by 2003. I’m pretty sure they’re dying out by 2007, but it’s taken a lot of dead “sand niggers”.
15 March, 2007 at 1:01 am |
“for all Bush and Blair’s failings, i’d rather live in a world they control”
There is nothing to suggest that America and Britain want to forment anything like liberal democracy around the world. Latin American counter-insurgency states, or Suhartos Indonesia, or Saddams Iraq (pre 1991), or African dictatorships, or Islamic republics like Saudi Arabia are all just as bad as what an Iranian Ayatollah would put in place given major international power.
Its also not so easy to say that the world is controlled by no one. Of course the conspiracy theorists are totally wrong, and the blog makes a good point here, but Iran or North Korea have negligible power compared to the US. The world is not so much the chaotic mess you want it to be, international power is very much concentrated in the west.
15 March, 2007 at 1:13 am |
“There’s no new markets been set up in the chaos of post-invasion Iraq.”
they really fucking tried.
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
15 March, 2007 at 10:30 am |
If international power is so well concentrated then how come:
1) Iraq is a mess
2) Afghanistan is a mess
3) Iran is building the Bomb and there’s not much we seem able to do about it
4) North Korea may have the Bomb and there’s not much we seem able to do about it
The West may be the most powerful, but that fact alone doesn’t mean its power is irresistable or overwhelming. The global evidence is clearly against that simplistic view.
15 March, 2007 at 10:36 am |
And…
It’s really easy to buy Saudi imported honey (because importing things into Iraq is really safe) when it’s really safe to walk the streets, where market-places are the safest places to go (after Shia Mosques or government buildings), because you have loads of money to spend on luxuries like honey because the economy is doing really well and you have a stable secure income.
Well i guess a bill-board advertising honey, put up by a crane that is not being used to promote infrastructure reconstruction really proves me wrong….
15 March, 2007 at 3:10 pm |
“Well i guess a bill-board advertising honey, put up by a crane that is not being used to promote infrastructure reconstruction really proves me wrong…”
read the rest…
Concentration of power doesn’t mean they cant make mistakes, or fuck things up sometimes.
Iran may be trying to make the bomb, but lets see…
Israel has a couple hundred of the damn things (compared to struggling to build just one). Iran are under pretty much direct military threat, from two states that have shown no regard for international law, or the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The US claims to reserve the right to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states, and has thousands of nuclear warheads, yet they suffer no serious threat of invasion , and there are no sanctions being put on the united states.
Iran is run by crackpots, who appear not to care about human rights and freedom in their own country, and, with this nuclear program, their own safety. But that comes absolutely no where near to a balance of power. It has been predicted constantly by experts, (and really, is just plain common sense) that the Bush administrations’ foreign policy will dnagerously bring about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Iran aren’t just some evil islamic rogue that want to blow the world up, and that western leaders are fumbling around trying to stop. Stopping the support for Israel, withdrawing from Iraq, entering into negotiations (without rendering them meaningless through intimidating military presence) are all clear ways to stop Iran acting as such a threat. But that would involve letting go of oil and money of course.
15 March, 2007 at 7:13 pm |
“Israel has a couple hundred of the damn things (compared to struggling to build just one). Iran are under pretty much direct military threat, from two states that have shown no regard for international law, or the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The US claims to reserve the right to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states, and has thousands of nuclear warheads, yet they suffer no serious threat of invasion , and there are no sanctions being put on the united states.”
- are you really trying to imply that America/Israel are on a moral par with Iran? Maybe if you were an impartial observer you *might* be able to push that line. As a member of a liberal western democracy, it’d be pretty stupid to say that America/Israel having nukes is the same as Iran having them. Base line claim: America/Israel wont nuke you. They will both also uphold your human rights. That *doesn’t* mean that American/Israeli policy is automatically (if ever) justified, but it does mean it’s stupid to crow some relativism about Iran having an equal right to nuclear weaponry. Get real; this is global politics of life and death, Iran MUST NOT get those weapons. Unless of course you would like Cold War II to commence, but where the other side does not fear death at all, seen as it leads to paradise…
The cold hard facts, or more precisely, raison d’etat, imply that however fucked up America and Israel can get, it’s preferable to the Ayatollahs getting funky with nuclear weapons.
-
“Iran aren’t just some evil islamic rogue that want to blow the world up, and that western leaders are fumbling around trying to stop. Stopping the support for Israel, withdrawing from Iraq, entering into negotiations (without rendering them meaningless through intimidating military presence) are all clear ways to stop Iran acting as such a threat. But that would involve letting go of oil and money of course.”
-
1) If you really think that if we pulled out of Iraq, disolved the state of Israel, and engaged in negotiations with Iran, Islamic Fundamentalists would suddenly decide they had no problem with the West, and would quitely go back to oppressing women (and gays, and free thinkers etc etc) within their own borders while ignoring us, then you seriously mis-understand the nature of the beast. As far as i remember, pre-2001 the USA/’the West’ did no interfering with Afghanistan, and the US presence in Saudi Arabia was welcomed by its ruling elite (of whom Bin Laden was of course previously a member). 9/11 still happened. Islamic Extremists hate *everything* that makes us who we are. They cannot be reasoned with. Sorry, that’s a fact. I admire your spirit, which is to take the rug from under their feet by removing popular support – that’s a noble aim and one that should be pursued; abandoning Israel to the wolves and leaving the Iraqi people to be slaughtered is unlikely to pull it off though.
On Israel specifically, what exactly are we supposed to do? Now i AGREE that the pre-1967 borders should be restored; i.e. return the West Bank and Gazza. But i don’t think the state of Israel should be wiped out (where will all those Jews go?), whatever the historical injustice of its creation, which i accept can’t be justified ex post. But we have a situation to deal with *now*. Regimes like Iran and Syria however want Israel wiped out, and all Israelies/Jews dead. So if you want to talk about states who are surrounded by ultra hostile aggressors, take another look at Israel.
I’m NOT defending Israeli policy, which is often inhumane, disgusting, deplorable and very inflamatory. But to not defend Israeli policy *does not* entail supporting Islamic fundamentalist anti-Semitism (*please* don’t dissapoint me by expressing the shocking view i have heard from others which amounts to little more than: ’so what if Israelies die, they deserve it’).
Nor does it entail the over-simplistic view that if we just disarmed Israel and withdrew all support from it, the middle east would suddenly calm down and fundamentalists would stop hating ‘the West’. What would happen would be an Israeli blood-bath, and then a resumption of fundamentalist hatred of ‘the West’. I.e. you and me.
I’m not going to deny that a more even-handed approach to Israel, and attempting to make the lives of ordinay Arabs in Islamic states better without coercion will go a long way. But being upset by Israeli activity DOES NOT mean that all the middle east’s problems are rooted there. That’s an easy, convenient and over-simplistic view.
2) If it’s all about oil, then why stir up trouble regarding nukes, antagonise Iran via -pro-Israeli policy, act aggressively etc etc? Surely peaceful negotiations – what you are calling for – would themselves lead to much safer/secure means of securing said oil? Unless of course the leaders of Iran are to a large extent UNreasonable…but whoops, that can’t be right, because it’s American *policy* to antagonise them. Just like the Americans antagonise Saudi Arabia….? And i’m NOT supporting US policy towards Saudi Arabia; i’m just pointing out that the US is more than happy to cut deals with murderous theocratic regimes when it can.
3)Iran *is* run by ‘nutters’ aka evil Islamic rogues. Sure they don’t want to “blow the world up”, but they DO want to take all women’s rights away, end civil liberties, impose Sharia law everywhere, make the Koran the sole source of legal and moral truth etc etc etc. (So they are ‘nutters’, at least from the perspective of a western liberal who promotes liberal social democratic values, to thereby contradict your claim); if we blew up Israel tomorrow and threw money at Iran i doubt they’d stop hating us.
Too much Chomsky, not enough careful reflection my son. To bang it home: fundamentalists – and this DOES cover the Iranian theocratic government – don’t want to talk about it. The men who carried out 9/11 and 7/7 didn’t care who they killed; Muslim, Jew, Atheist etc. The uncomfortable truth is that you can’t just sit Iranian leaders round a table and come to a compromise: they don’t comprehend such a thing. It’s far too easy to blame America, which for all it’s glaring, horrendous faults, is still a far FAR more favourable regime than a fundamentalist theocracy.
15 March, 2007 at 7:22 pm |
““Well i guess a bill-board advertising honey, put up by a crane that is not being used to promote infrastructure reconstruction really proves me wrong…”
read the rest…”
Yeah right! It may be a bad plan, but the Klein article shows quite well how the Bush administration were heavily driven by economic interests. I will reply a bit more to some of this when I have the time, but it’s a good debate — a good test of the realist conception of international relations.
15 March, 2007 at 7:29 pm |
OK
i’m not denying that economic motives played SOME part. That would be as naive as the view i generally tend to attack.
I’m just saying it can’t be the *only* explanation. The real world is just far too messy, far too complicated to pick out one definitive ’cause’ from which everything flows, or even a set of clearly defined causes, for that matter.
After all, if it WAS that easy, then we wouldn’t need academics and intellectuals to debate this stuff. Everyone – governments and thinkers – would just read Chomsky and go “ah, so that’s where we’ve been going wrong”. The fact thousands of intelligent people don’t do that sort of implies things are rather trickier than Rage Against The Machine might like.
15 March, 2007 at 7:33 pm |
But in relation to my post number 8:
i DO NOT mean to imply that we should all start agreeing with Nick Cohen and back pre-emptive attacks on states we don’t get along with, drawing some shoddy, historically impoverished analogies with 1930s appeasement.
I just want a middle way which doesn’t either absolve Iran (and co.) of all blame, placing it all instead on the US, or on the other hand write ‘rogue states’ off as hopeless and run by babbling psycopaths who must be bombed back to the stone age or else we will all be killed in our beds by suicide bombers.
Sorry if some of my posts (designed to rebut Ste/James’ general position) have come accross sounding like the latter.
16 March, 2007 at 3:55 pm |
Just to clarify (Ill be back for full on debate later) my views on Israel.
I dont think Israel should be dissolved, I, think it should return to its pre-1967 borders, and that there should exist a sovereign Palestinian state, which includes East Jerusalem. Thats pretty much what everyone wants; if only Israel and America would allow it.
16 March, 2007 at 5:34 pm |
Erm, it can’t be what “everyone wants” if Israel and the US are opposed to it…
16 March, 2007 at 7:37 pm |
you know what I mean
16 March, 2007 at 7:38 pm |
everyone apart from them
16 March, 2007 at 7:40 pm |
I think the view you put across in post one, about a middle way that doesnt absolve Iran and co. from all blame is wise.
16 March, 2007 at 8:40 pm |
Why thank you kind sir.
Are we jamming any time soon?
And can i have my Graham Greene book back you bloody theif!?
16 March, 2007 at 9:16 pm |
The bull above is a complete hangout debate ;
Check out:
http://www.911bloglines.com
http://www.911researchers.com
http://www.livevideo.com/ewing2001
plus
http://www.livevideo.com/bsregistration
http://www.livevideo.com/genghis6199
http://www.livevideo.com/total411info
http://www.livevideo.com/Coffinman
http://www.livevideo.com/killtown
and friends and favorites…
16 March, 2007 at 10:57 pm |
“The bull above is a complete hangout debate ;”
Can you put that into English for me please?
17 March, 2007 at 1:01 am |
We’ve got a conspiracy nut, I hope he stays, this could be fun
17 March, 2007 at 11:16 am |
Actually i think he’s on our side.
I checked out those links, and most of them are to anti-9/11 conspiracy theory sites. You can get a really good video on one of those links called “Screw Loose Change” which does a total demolition job of that Loose Change video that most part-time conspiracy nuts bang on about.