As it happens I agree that theories of conspiracy can be entirely ludicrous and, indeed, harmful: the Protocols is a dark example from history, and the odd fantasies that Nick Harding details, which have Starbucks at the centre of a plot of Machiavellian proportions, are modern ones. (And, no, not the true one about them forcing cafés out of business – made-up, anti-semitic ones.) But if you’re to educate people you need an understanding of whether and why a theory is mistaken. And I’m not sure Harding does…
According to one new theory, Muammar Gaddafi was not overthrown because he was a crazed brutal dictator; he was ousted and killed because he was plotting to introduce a new Africa-wide trading currency to threaten the dollar.
Well, I doubt Gaddafi’s green inspired the war in Libya but is Harding implying that to avoid being a conspiraloon you have to accept the state’s rationale for war? That he was “ousted and killed” for being a “crazed brutal dictator”? Well, gee, I’m not entirely sure why they invaded Libya but if we believed our governments’ justifications Iraq was invaded for its WMDs; Grenada was liberated from the incoming Communists; the mujaheddin were freedom fighters who deserved support; Cambodia was never bombed and Vietnam had to be fought because the Maddox was attacked. (A brief note for those who’ve never liked the whole “sarcasm” thing: none of those were true.)
My point – again – is that opponents of supposed conspiracy theorising tend to understate the evident duplicity of institutions. (Never mind the more, er – disputable duplicity!) Thus, from such unreasonably trusting premises they’ll never educate the folk who’ve drawn irrationally grave conclusions. And, besides, they’ll let those institutions get away with it.
I’ll admit that Harding’s done some research, though. I’ve never experienced this corker…
…according to studies, belief in one theory suggests believers will accept other unrelated theories. So if you believe Disney planted subliminal messages about sex in the movie The Lion King, you are also likely to believe mobile phone GPS technology is used by the government to monitor citizens, or that the Wingdings font included with Windows has been used to send hidden messages.
I’ve sung the opening vocals from The Lion King since I was 3 and never worked out the lyrics. On hearing this theory, though, it struck me that they could be “arse and wanger”. No, I’ve not gone mad, I know they’re not, but I’ll still hear that every time it’s sung. Ah, there’s another section of my childhood spoiled.
November 14, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Your link shows the benefit obtained for those in power from promoting conspiracy theories as the reason for political action – the CEO of Starbucks is a significant supporter of Israel as his Wikipedia page attests:
In 1998, Schultz was awarded the “Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award” from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah for “playing a key role in promoting a close alliance between the United States and Israel”.
For more detail
Checked out the “study” by Demos’ Jamie Bartlett on Conspiracies and Extremism, and the first example of a far-left conspiracy theory is from the Angry brigade (cutting-edge up-to-the-minute research, eh?):
Angry Brigade communiqués present the action of the ‘bosses’
as a coherent and conscious attempt to emasculate the working classes
Fail.
No.2 is “Anti-Globalisation extremism”(love the detail)
Many of the most extreme post-2000 anti-globalization
narratives personalise and intentionalise the process of
globalisation, and describe it as the result of the conscious
machinations of the powerful few. Some portray these
powerful few to be international financiers, some ‘money Jews’.
Love the detail.
No.3 is the Red Army Faction, no.4 “Revolutionary Sect”, with all the above criticisms applying to the entry for each.
I’m reminded that Ben Goldacre said recently (it might have been on QI) that if newspapers mention studies they should link to them so that we can all form an independent opinion.
I tried looking at the \Karen Douglas research, but it doesn’t seem to be openly accesible. I would guess that it says more about how the methodology of psycho experiments can affect the result than it does about how opinions are formed in the outside world and how we should hudge the validity of such beliefs.
A friend did tell me yesterday that an OccupyLSX live stream had been dominated by discussion of Raymond St.Clair.
November 14, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I’m cool with people boycotting Starbucks if they want. (Heck, people can boycott whatever they like.) Protesting against it seems bizarre, though. What do they expect to happen? That this Shultz dude will come out and say, “Yeah, ‘kay, I’ve changed my mind.”
I’d agree with that. I’m not sure most journalists have even read the papers – just skimmed through abstracts on PubMed and so on.
November 14, 2011 at 6:32 pm
You never know. I’m not sure that boycotting and protesting are that different, and in any case my point is that “while Harding’s done some research”, it’s fairly shit second-hand research, and fits into a pattern of highlighting isolated CT explanations for the value of a political position and dismissing all those that hold such a position as CTists.[See D Aaronovitch The Voodoo Histories]
So I’d say Harding is wronger than give him lack of credit for.
November 14, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Oh, I agree with that.