Already a subscriber? Log in
It’s easy to get carried away. We shouldn’t forget, though, that conspiracy in some contexts is the norm. One can sanely believe that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag in 1933.
Then again, a government might respond with such alacrity to an event that the event is assumed to have been staged in order to justify the response. The US government was enabled by the events of 11 September 2001 to act in ways that suited an established purpose (the war in Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed into law later that month) but that does not mean, as millions fervently believe, that it was implicated in the atrocity.
The sane man puts his trust in government; or does he? When Theresa May last month branded critics of her draft communications bill (or ‘snooper’s charter’) ‘conspiracy theorists’ — ‘I have no doubt conspiracy theorists will come up with some ridiculous claims…’ — she was in tune with the US State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs, whose website declares, ‘Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts, and evidence is ignored.’ The assumption in both instances is that ‘conspiracy theorist’ is a synonym for ‘fruitcake’. But that is not necessarily just, or even sensible: a conspiracy theory does not, by its very nature, ‘exist in the realm of myth’ — not these days.
Concern about the erosion of civil liberties is valid. We want to be protected from terrorists and paedophiles, of course, but must you therefore claim the right to read my post and emails? Governments are as interested in the individual human as mother nature herself: that is, not at all. It is the nation that matters. It is not crazy to be suspicious of manoeuvrings which are, after all, beyond the ken of most.
That being the case, a concerted attempt by a select group to change the world (or ‘conspiracy’) need not be secret at all. It just needs to be conducted in language, and to be concerned with concepts, like ‘quantitative easing’, which few understand. There are extremely detailed and serious-minded conspiracy theories about the collapse of the euro, which was, they say, intended to implode, designed to fail, in order to help usher in global government (an arrangement which will ultimately benefit that tiny elite). Does that seem crazy? Well, just look at what is happening before our eyes. Angela Merkel — ‘The lesson of this crisis is more Europe, not less Europe’ — is quite able to chill the blood in full view of the world’s press.
It is now completely normal, even orthodox, to be sceptical about climate change — this position entails acceptance of a conspiracy theory. Middle-aged and respectable or not, we are all at it, inquisitive, suspicious, more knowledgeable than before. We might not call ourselves conspiracy theorists but that is what many have imperceptibly become. This is a good thing, no? The powers that be must be held to account. The so-called paranoid’s question, cui bono? — who is going to benefit from this? — is a question always worth asking. Liberty is precious: trust no one.
Also in Society
Also by Jrh Mcewen
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in