Skip to content

David Aaronovitch on Conspiracy Theories

September 20, 2010

David Aaronovitch

This Coast to Coast AM write-up, below these comments, of an interview with David Aaronovitch on conspiracy theories is really very interesting. And it certainly touches on some issues that have bothered me.

Being a person who subscribes to many “conspiracy theories,” when I look at Aaronovitch’s points, in the interests of truth, I have to agree with some of them.

Not all, but some.

Not like I think he’ll get many of us to listen while we’re in the heat of battle against, say, HAARP or pandemic vaccines, but some of what he says is still a useful corrective.

Don’t forget that what he calls “the elite” have conspiracy theories as well as whistleblowers. George Bush’s theory that 9/11 was caused by 19 Muslim hijackers is a conspiracy theory and, in my eyes, has been proven to be a cover-up.

Here are some points I do agree with. As Aaronovitch says, some conspiracy theories do not allow for accident, incompetence or coincidence. I think that’s true. But I also think that’s potentially true about any theory.

Another point: theorists often exaggerate the credentials of their proponents. Everyone – on all sides – often seems to do that. I think it’s a routine thing, I’m tempted to say, in many cases, almost irresistible.

I can think of a personal example. Twice online I’ve been called enlightened. But I’m actually and truly not enlightened. Perhaps this is the right place to say this: That word means something and cannot be applied to me in truth. If you do, you’re doing just what Aaronovitch says – you’re exaggerating my credentials.

Oh, how difficult it is to get those words out.  How embarrassing to say that. And I think it illustrates why much exaggeration is left alone. To correct the information runs one the risk of placing oneself in a bad light – for instance, looking contrary, like a miserable grumbler or a loose cannon.

How easy it would be, on the contrary, to just let a flattering misrepresentation be.

Aaronovitch also points to a too-ready acceptance of anti-elitist theories. We may accept them too readily because people feel frustrated at their impotence and want to strike out at elites.  I’ve seen this operate a few times and have felt a mite queezy about it as a move which appeals to people’s potentially darker sides. (At its worst, it’s demagoguery.)

It also may be, as he says, that we sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, some vaccines may be needed and do rid us of conditions like measles.  But vaccines as a whole become suspect as a result of our activism. So Aaronovitch shows that the picture is not all cut and dried.

Whether or not anyone listens to him doesn’t detract from the fact that some of what he says has merit.

After 2012, we won’t have to battle dark forces and we’ll be more open to discussing the shortcomings of our approach as conspiracy theorists.  Right now, he may find that he is talking to people who are busy with life-and-death issues and may not want to listen.

Behind Conspiracy Theories

Coast to Coast AM

On Sunday night’s program, George Knapp welcomed author David Aaronovitch for an examination of the origins of conspiracy theories, why people believe them, and also to make an argument for a true skepticism based on a thorough knowledge of history and a strong dose of common sense.

Based on his research, Aaronovitch defined a conspiracy theory as “an explanation for something which is far more complicated and removes responsibility from the obvious people to the not obvious people, in situations where the more obvious explanation is more likely.”

Aaronovitch detailed a number of problematic attributes which he feels “attach themselves” to conspiracy theories and those who subscribe to them:

  • Conspiracy theories do not allow for accident, incompetence, or coincidence.
  • The official version of events “almost always, at its heart” has anomalies that cannot be reconciled.
    Scholars, usually with exaggerated credentials, are named as proponents of the theory.
  • The theory is anti-elite and, thus, the theorist becomes “kind of a minuteman” warning the populace about the “powers that be.”

On why there needs to be skepticism about conspiracy theories, Aaronovitch used the example of recent developments in the UK which arose as a result of rumors that vaccines cause autism. He explained that this theory became so pervasive that people began to stop having their children vaccinated. In turn, Aaronovitch lamented, the measles virus re-emerged back into the population after it had been eradicated in previous years.

“This stuff has to be combated because it does have consequences for people,” he declared. On a far larger scale, he noted that the widespread belief in the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Nazi Germany acted as a proverbial “warrant for genocide” for many misguided players in WWII.

Aaronovich also looked at a number of suspect issues surrounding a variety of conspiracy theories. With regards to the Moon Landing hoax, he observed that to complete such a fabrication would require far more manpower than the actual lunar landing itself. In addition to that, he pointed out that lunar conspiracy theorists often focus solely on the Apollo 11 landing and ignore the many other trips made to the moon.

Regarding 9/11, Aaronovich conceded that the official version of events is also a conspiracy theory, but that its very simplicity is what makes this theory much more plausible than a grand overarching plan by nefarious forces inside the US government. To that end, he noted that if the government was truly clever enough to “organize conspiracies,” then they would have planted WMDs in Iraq rather than invade the country and find none. “It would have been a much simpler thing to do,” he mused, “and yet they didn’t.”

4 Comments leave one →
  1. September 20, 2010 6:15 pm

    Weigh the evidence on both sides. Listen to everything said. Watch everything you find. Read voraciously. Use common sense and your intuition will reach into your heart and find your truth.

  2. PeterW permalink
    September 20, 2010 1:38 pm

    I must admit that I have difficulty with ChemTrails in particular. I have no problem with the mechanical side of ejection through the anti-stat wicks on the trailing edge of the wings, tail plane and fin, or that there may be a pressure switch to start and stop the flow at altitude, that’s the easy bit.

    However, who would secretly replenish the many aircraft involved, design and manufacture the equipment without asking why they were doing it, and in the process poison both themselves and their families?

    If the culprits are civilian aircraft as well as military or government owned craft, how can the aircrew be unaware of what’s spewing out of the tail?

    How could the lid be kept on something like this for so long?

    • September 20, 2010 3:02 pm

      We’ll know before too long, Peter. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that either (or both) cybernetic beings and mind-controlled humans were involved. That would explain how they could bring themselves to spray chemtrails and how they could keep the secret.

      But i can’t say that I know.

  3. mary permalink
    September 20, 2010 1:19 pm

    The reason those buildings HAD TO come down besides creating the terror that ok’d war, was because giant computers in WT7 had to be destroyed.

    These computers housed files on corrupt Wall Street dealings as well as information on NESARA which was to be released to the public. NESARA was to go into effect Sept 12th and it was stopped dead in its tracks.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: