To reduce skepticism of vaccines to anti-science is therefore not really helpful. I find it a bit astonishing to see how the vaccine debate in the US is framed as an either-or discussion. The fact that Sweden has less mandatory or recommended vaccines for children than the US or that it doesn't recommend covid vaccines to children is not because Sweden is anti-vaxx, it is just that it has a bit more cautios approach to vaccines. The same goes for the use of thimerosal in vaccines. It is made a big deal that "kennedy" want to prohibit its use. But it was banned for human use in Sweden already 1993, it is only allowed for animal vaccines!
Buyer beware, especially of things going directly into your blood stream.
I reduce blanket acceptance of vaccines as anti-science. I think that's helpful. The burden of proof is on pro-vacciners to show the evidence, not just to say it's the 'consensus' of doctors trained and funded by pharma or it says so on wikipedia.
Yes and this can be why, it will appear simpler to say, just a minute.... lets just step back a little from all this here and take on that other notion, that the world is flat. Try it sometime.
This is the typical response, that benefits big pharma, that anyone questioning anything they do, the fact that they pay $billions in fines for fraud or the fact that 8 of the authors of the influential Israeli 'covid' jab paper had stock or stock options with Pfizer or questioning the safety and efficacy of any of their products is a conspiracy flat earther.
This is the most stupid and the most 'anti-science' that you can get.
I would give your comment 'a like' if it would only let me; possibly because of my own lowly status on the substack platform.
Clearly my comment serves a purpose for you as you bring to light a small facet of so much in our very ugly runaway realm of human's being human and not at all very sapient.
But do my words really benefit big pharma here in this post? The author covers well a universe of issues as we live alongside global capitalism that, to me, present a warped sense of Progress across 50 years. I am dismayed by the absence of real scientific progress in the environment sector for example, nothing from our world of Reason appears capable of trouncing these many conspiracies and putting them in the ground.
On Conspiracies, the curious thing is that in the reality of the 'street', we do occasionally meet people that, alongside all other anti-science venting, they really do imagine a flat earth.
Hence, without the great libraries of knowledge at my fingertips in this astonishing universe of disciplines, to challenge their 'expert' toehold in so many of these erring developments that society is too ready to describe as progressive. I found it convenient on one memorable occasion... easier to first explore (with the flat earther) that flat earth opinion that's lodged itself in there with all else.
I'm certainly not anti-science but I am extremely disappointed with so much of Science; it has become highly vulnerable under the conditions of attrition. I can return at some point on the nature of this thing called 'Progress' when I get a chance. For me, Rachel's text provides a useful overview of how as sapient being's, we are all are failing miserably... we've lost the plot.
My intro onto substack is through following Professor Keen (somewhere on the platform you will find... Debunking Economics; he's someone I find, is working effectively to redress a balance. He explains and demonstrates where the overarching discipline of Economics fails us all but also is doing something about it.
I would heartily agree with the analysis and I would also put a word in for Richard Murphy whose piece this morning promotes the politics of care over Social Democracy, Capitalism, Neoliberalism and even Socialism! Worth a watch. Hope you don't mind me linking this. https://youtu.be/mMLLrdFj9mI?si=U2nW3Yo4dFwR8Gqf
I'm somewhat cool on the idea of persuading anyone - let alone conspiracy theorists - of their mistaken attributions but I do appreciate that validating their intuition is a good response. This may be just a personal thing as although I'm up for a robust debate with those I know I baulk at any whiff of evangelism, especially with people I'm less familiar.
The furthest I would go would be to start with the validation and acknowledge I have a different idea of why they are feeling the way than they do but that I have no intention of getting them to adopt it. Rather, appeal to their ability to think for themselves, check their information and come to their own conclusion if they haven't already. If 'truth' is not their primary goal they are unlikely even to go that far. Leaving such a encounter without rancour is important as all I can really do is leave the door open and wait for something to shake the foundations of their belief.
That doesn't mean that inside I'm not busting to convert them!
Thanks for the link to Richard Murphy’s video. Very helpful. And I appreciate your acknowledgement that it’s tempting to want to convert and it’s respectful to invite curiosity instead.
This is assuming that you're right about everything! And very patronising.
The left were unable to think for themselves and swallowed what they were told about covid. The right were unable to think for themselves and swallowed what they were told about climate.
Indeed, such conversations are difficult and often not a good use of energy. Lee McIntyre's How to Talk to a Science Denier is quite good on this. He makes a basic point that it's best to focus on what counts as evidence for both of you in the conversation and questions of methodology (i.e. how you know something). Ask people what they think it might take to change their minds, and try and give an honest account yourself of what might change your own? It can save a lot of protracted and frustrating discussions and arguments (especially if they say nothing would change their minds).
I would say that someone who is pro vaccine is a 'Science denier', at least they haven't looked into the methodology and what counts as evidence for vaccines for themselves. I would ask them what it would take to change their minds, they are very recalcitrant. I show them the lack of evidence but they seem to think the proof of vaccine efficacy is just a thing that everybody 'knows' because they've been told it's so.
While I tend to agree that capitalism is the main benefactor of conspiracy theories and conspiracism at the moment, I think that conspiracy beliefs feed into, emerge from and reinforce a lot of different systems (social, political, religious, cultural and economic) and have done so for a long time.
Why? Because conspiracy beliefs are supported by multiple cognitive and epistemic biases that we are all subject to, perhaps most notably a very strong tendency to attribute agency and intentionality to events where it does not or is unlikely to exist (i.e. hypersensitive agency detection) and similarly strong failures of probabilistic reasoning, such as overestimating the likelihood of co-occurring events (i.e. seeing connections where there aren’t any, mistakenly reading correlations as causality, conjunction fallacies). Plus those beliefs address a number of well-established psychological, social and existential functions and needs (e.g. most broadly a desire for meaning, control and certainty) and they are empowered by economic, social and political inequalities that are likely to be around for a very long time. So, conspiracy theories can provide a sense of control in the face of feelings of powerlessness; conspiracy theorists and believers are able to reject official narratives and replace them with an account that makes better sense to them; conspiracy theories can enhance self-esteem, especially through a sense of having access to special knowledge and knowing something that others don’t; conspiracy theories can also reinforce aspects of group identity, most notably in a defensive sense, building on the idea that one’s social group is under threat from outsiders and others (basically strengthening ‘in-group vs out-group’, ‘us and them’ thinking); conspiracy theories can also explain one’s disadvantaged, dis-empowered or oppressed status (i.e. one is the victim of an overarching conspiracy of far more powerful forces, global elites, Illuminati (however these may be conceived; and as per some for the examples you provide here)).
Sorry, that was turning into a bit of lecture. Not my intent. My main point is that conspiracy beliefs can be co-extensive with nationalisms, religions, ideologies and a multitude of other systems that we are imbricated within. So I tend to hesitate when everything is reduced to economics or capitalism (although the examples you provide seem spot on). There is a plurality of 'monstrous' systems out there, capitalism simply may be the biggest.
I would agree with much of what you write and especially the dynamics of conspiracy theory. I depart a bit on the lack of plurality in the focus on capitalism. Economics is intertwined with every facet of our lives. Even the apparently free activity of admiring the view is predicated on you living in or travelling to a place of beauty both of which require money.
You are right that conspiracy theory can arise in social, political, religious, cultural and economic spheres but from my perspective these are not discreet areas and economics is arguably not just common but essential to all of them.
I would agree that we can't be separated from the economic system (similar things might be said about the political, cultural or linguistic systems that we inhabit). My main point is the degree to which conspiracy beliefs and theories are coupled to, originate from and/or serve particular systems. Basically an economic explanation may not always be the best or appropriate explanation; although such an explanation can always be applied, just as one might reach for an evolutionary, Freudian or other such explanations. So, to reach for an easy example, Epstein conspiracy theories probably have an economic component, but they also spin out into religious realms (Satanic panics) as well as the political (anti-democrat, hidden cabals and global elites). Or, with something like Flat Earth or Moon Landing conspiracy theories, it can be even harder to rely on or find an economic or capitalist explanation (although, I admit, not impossible).
A brilliant flipping of the conspiracy script. I’ve got a few contacts who have gone down this dark path but don’t really know how to engage with them and have felt like it’s a waste of time. It seems like believing one conspiracy means you believe them all. The problem is, as you explain here, there are understandable reasons for believing in many of them. We’re not helped by the inconsistencies in the Net Zero narrative or the obvious corruption on display with vaccine rollouts and PPE contracts.
Maybe I’ll have a go at using one of your arguments here in the future, although it won’t help that many followers of conspiracy theories also identify as capitalists.
The dissenters and the justifiably worried about the evidence for lockdowns, mask wearing and vaccines were, of course, on the money. It was a marketing exercise by big pharma. None of the measures were evidence based or necessary.
However, using the power of social media these people were corralled and targeted with nonsense climate crisis denials and a 'globalist' conspiracy trying to stop us using fossil fuels or eating animal products. I watched it happen. It was well organised and well funded. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/this-is-no-health-freedom-movement
The distrust of science in general was created, however the politicians themselves didn't present any robust evidence for anything, they just said 'trust the science'. I do trust 'science' ie the study of evidence and it revealed that eg the covid mRNA jab studies did not justify them for anyone, let alone justifying a mandate.
I appreciate your exposure and analysis of the ways that conspiracists project and blame. Especially in the area of climate science. The insight that scientists have knowledge but not power is chilling indeed.
Perfect and timely critical analysis. In the US I believe we're struggling with another conspiracy theory grounded in truth: the widespread sexual abuse of children and the utter failure of governmental authorities to hold perpetrators accountable.
QAnon latched onto a truth about sexual abuse almost too horrific to face, so awful, in fact, that large numbers of experts misunderstood or rejected the data. In truth, wildly unacceptably large percentages of children are victims of sexual abuse. And also in truth, our criminal legal systems have utterly failed to hold the abusers accountable.
I think the relatively recent arc of this issue, over perhaps the past 50 years or so, began with data from victims that, once collected, shared, and put into context, seemed and perhaps still seems unbelievable. Can this many children really be victims? The initial and overwhelming systemic response to the evidence was to doubt and then sometimes blame victims. Believe perpetrators. Bar cases using statutes of limitation. Develop a theory of false memory syndrome. Impose standards of proof that are impossible to meet in crimes committed without witnesses other than the victim.
After proof, and reluctant acknowledgement of widespread systemic abuse came to light in cases involving the Catholic Church and other institutions, conspiracy theories still surfaced with respect to systemic child abuse because we still couldn't face reality. Conspiracy theories now compound the tragedies of institutional failure, serving those in power and protecting failed institutions. In reality, the failed systems of governance and law that let some of the most heinous perpetrators off the hook could be reformed and made far more effective. Instead, we're chasing conspiracy theories.
Finally, and another main point in response to this essay in addition to conspiracy theory dynamics, is that organized, criminal conspiracies involving sexual abuse, such as the Epstein/Maxwell criminal conspiracy, are absolutely explained by capitalism. Epstein and Maxwell enslaved and trafficked girls as a means to a few basic ends: to enrich themselves by laundering money, facilitating international finance, and influencing global affairs. Although Epstein and Maxwell were both personal abusers, their personal crimes were secondary to their larger and primary criminal aims. That's the real criminal conspiracy we should be trying to unpack and prosecute in addition to the sex crimes. Epstein was never held fully accountable for his sex crimes, and, to the extent that he was, it was used to hide the truth of his larger criminal enterprise. The same has been true of the Maxwell prosecution and conviction, and it very much looks like a Maxwell deal will be used to bury this truth even deeper.
Interesting article. Yet, the powers that be really do not care if some potential workers die -- we have a history of experimenting and medically torturing black and brown people, and our indigenous people.
It's the last part for me, that the first fuels a certain narcissism, while the second opens a pit of existential despair. The banality of evil is much harder to face than fantasies of supervillains.
Anyone who wants to discuss conspiracy vs capitalism must understand this;
Corporate US (fossil fuels, animal ag, pharma, arms, tech, AI and media) want covid dissenters and others to BELIEVE that there’s a globalist conspiracy, who faked the climate crisis, to control us with climate policies. This has created support for fossil fuels and animal ag (pharma’s biggest client) in the face of growing awareness of the crisis. Plus it’s grown support for racism, Reform, MAGA and put a climate change denier in the White House. This is entirely consistent with their white supremacist patriarchal capitalist ethos.
Conspiracy theorist also provides a very effective way to sneer at and discredit anyone questioning the lack of evidence for drastic and harmful policies, anyone reluctant to allow themselves to be injected with unknown products made by convicted fraudsters or wishing to discuss the nature of disease itself. This is also entirely consistent with US corporates white supremacist patriarchal capitalist ethos.
There is zero evidence to support the imposition of any 'covid' policy or product. Maddeningly; this lack of scientific evidence is being used to create doubt over the wealth of scientific evidence for the anthropogenic climate crisis.
While I agree with your general thrust, I wonder a bit about individual arguments:
- "Deliberately targeting toddlers with a condition that may leave them unable to work is antithetical to capitalist logic." - Afair, the apartheid SA government had a research program for pathogens that would only kill Blacks. From a capitalist logic, this always read insane to me but there are apparently occasionally over-riding beliefs.
- "Governments everywhere are cutting back on the welfare state and care economy. Any body that cannot work is inhumanely perceived as a drain on the state’s resources." - yep, so culling some of the poor population would reduce the "drain". For me the argument's rather than a smaller unemployed population reduces downward wage pressure: large amounts of unemployed can be used to discipline workers by threatening them w/replacement.
Thank you Rachel, as always, for your excellent journalistic scrutiny. However, I have to say that this piece is rather weak and not up to your normal rigour.
I'm sure there are people who are completely blinded by the idea of conspiracies but to simply lump all people who are sceptical of certain aspects of mainstream belief into the conspiracy bubble and label them as people who reject science and can't see the influence of capitalism is simply lazy. Even if one were to have complete faith in science, which in itself is flawed because of it's limited perspective, one has to ask the question, 'who pays the scientist?'.
The debate around around Covid and vaccinations is too big to go into here but to suggest anybody hesitant of the Covid vaccine doesn't understand capitalism and has conflated our systems of exploitation with scientific expertise is to disregard the nuanced position taken by many. You rightly suggest we should trying to understand the subtleties of these positions and what drives them and then go on to give very simplistic explanations of some of the more popular conspiracy theories.
Whilst I agree that many conspiracy theories are over simplistic, in many cases so too is the dismissal of them.
I found this "analysis" of the COVID thing quite maddening. You left out a lot, including the fact that the supposed "vaccine" prevented neither transmission nor contraction. It was not a product of "The Science," it was a product of giant corporations who needed mandates and social coercion to sell their useless (at best) product.
Most of what was labeled "mis-dis-mal-information" about the whole shady fiasco later turned out to be true. (I won't bore you with running down the details - it's as boring as listing the reasons why the greenhouse effect is real.)
Conspiracy Theory: People who identify as either Left or Right are herded into information bubbles where their preferred narratives are endlessly reinforced to the point where independent thought becomes quite difficult if not impossible.
By and large, I agree.
However, while there is no proven causal link between vaccines and autism, that doesn't imply that there are no reasons to be a bit cautious about vaccines, even those that have been considered safe. The Pandremix vaccinations against the H1N1 "swine flue" did cause narcolepsy, despite the fact that authorities encouraged its use. https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/globalassets/dokument/behandling-och-forskrivning/vaccin/occurrence-of-narcolepsy-with-cataplexy-among-children-and-adolescents-in-relation-to-the-h1n1-pandemic-and-pandemrix-vaccinations-2011-06-30.pdf
To reduce skepticism of vaccines to anti-science is therefore not really helpful. I find it a bit astonishing to see how the vaccine debate in the US is framed as an either-or discussion. The fact that Sweden has less mandatory or recommended vaccines for children than the US or that it doesn't recommend covid vaccines to children is not because Sweden is anti-vaxx, it is just that it has a bit more cautios approach to vaccines. The same goes for the use of thimerosal in vaccines. It is made a big deal that "kennedy" want to prohibit its use. But it was banned for human use in Sweden already 1993, it is only allowed for animal vaccines!
Yeah and there are considerable problems with the Cochrane review on the MMR omitting data etc etc https://jowaller.substack.com/p/mmr-and-autism?utm_source=publication-search
Buyer beware, especially of things going directly into your blood stream.
I reduce blanket acceptance of vaccines as anti-science. I think that's helpful. The burden of proof is on pro-vacciners to show the evidence, not just to say it's the 'consensus' of doctors trained and funded by pharma or it says so on wikipedia.
Yes and this can be why, it will appear simpler to say, just a minute.... lets just step back a little from all this here and take on that other notion, that the world is flat. Try it sometime.
This is the typical response, that benefits big pharma, that anyone questioning anything they do, the fact that they pay $billions in fines for fraud or the fact that 8 of the authors of the influential Israeli 'covid' jab paper had stock or stock options with Pfizer or questioning the safety and efficacy of any of their products is a conspiracy flat earther.
This is the most stupid and the most 'anti-science' that you can get.
I would give your comment 'a like' if it would only let me; possibly because of my own lowly status on the substack platform.
Clearly my comment serves a purpose for you as you bring to light a small facet of so much in our very ugly runaway realm of human's being human and not at all very sapient.
But do my words really benefit big pharma here in this post? The author covers well a universe of issues as we live alongside global capitalism that, to me, present a warped sense of Progress across 50 years. I am dismayed by the absence of real scientific progress in the environment sector for example, nothing from our world of Reason appears capable of trouncing these many conspiracies and putting them in the ground.
On Conspiracies, the curious thing is that in the reality of the 'street', we do occasionally meet people that, alongside all other anti-science venting, they really do imagine a flat earth.
Hence, without the great libraries of knowledge at my fingertips in this astonishing universe of disciplines, to challenge their 'expert' toehold in so many of these erring developments that society is too ready to describe as progressive. I found it convenient on one memorable occasion... easier to first explore (with the flat earther) that flat earth opinion that's lodged itself in there with all else.
I'm certainly not anti-science but I am extremely disappointed with so much of Science; it has become highly vulnerable under the conditions of attrition. I can return at some point on the nature of this thing called 'Progress' when I get a chance. For me, Rachel's text provides a useful overview of how as sapient being's, we are all are failing miserably... we've lost the plot.
My intro onto substack is through following Professor Keen (somewhere on the platform you will find... Debunking Economics; he's someone I find, is working effectively to redress a balance. He explains and demonstrates where the overarching discipline of Economics fails us all but also is doing something about it.
I would heartily agree with the analysis and I would also put a word in for Richard Murphy whose piece this morning promotes the politics of care over Social Democracy, Capitalism, Neoliberalism and even Socialism! Worth a watch. Hope you don't mind me linking this. https://youtu.be/mMLLrdFj9mI?si=U2nW3Yo4dFwR8Gqf
I'm somewhat cool on the idea of persuading anyone - let alone conspiracy theorists - of their mistaken attributions but I do appreciate that validating their intuition is a good response. This may be just a personal thing as although I'm up for a robust debate with those I know I baulk at any whiff of evangelism, especially with people I'm less familiar.
The furthest I would go would be to start with the validation and acknowledge I have a different idea of why they are feeling the way than they do but that I have no intention of getting them to adopt it. Rather, appeal to their ability to think for themselves, check their information and come to their own conclusion if they haven't already. If 'truth' is not their primary goal they are unlikely even to go that far. Leaving such a encounter without rancour is important as all I can really do is leave the door open and wait for something to shake the foundations of their belief.
That doesn't mean that inside I'm not busting to convert them!
Thanks for the link to Richard Murphy’s video. Very helpful. And I appreciate your acknowledgement that it’s tempting to want to convert and it’s respectful to invite curiosity instead.
This is assuming that you're right about everything! And very patronising.
The left were unable to think for themselves and swallowed what they were told about covid. The right were unable to think for themselves and swallowed what they were told about climate.
Indeed, such conversations are difficult and often not a good use of energy. Lee McIntyre's How to Talk to a Science Denier is quite good on this. He makes a basic point that it's best to focus on what counts as evidence for both of you in the conversation and questions of methodology (i.e. how you know something). Ask people what they think it might take to change their minds, and try and give an honest account yourself of what might change your own? It can save a lot of protracted and frustrating discussions and arguments (especially if they say nothing would change their minds).
I would say that someone who is pro vaccine is a 'Science denier', at least they haven't looked into the methodology and what counts as evidence for vaccines for themselves. I would ask them what it would take to change their minds, they are very recalcitrant. I show them the lack of evidence but they seem to think the proof of vaccine efficacy is just a thing that everybody 'knows' because they've been told it's so.
While I tend to agree that capitalism is the main benefactor of conspiracy theories and conspiracism at the moment, I think that conspiracy beliefs feed into, emerge from and reinforce a lot of different systems (social, political, religious, cultural and economic) and have done so for a long time.
Why? Because conspiracy beliefs are supported by multiple cognitive and epistemic biases that we are all subject to, perhaps most notably a very strong tendency to attribute agency and intentionality to events where it does not or is unlikely to exist (i.e. hypersensitive agency detection) and similarly strong failures of probabilistic reasoning, such as overestimating the likelihood of co-occurring events (i.e. seeing connections where there aren’t any, mistakenly reading correlations as causality, conjunction fallacies). Plus those beliefs address a number of well-established psychological, social and existential functions and needs (e.g. most broadly a desire for meaning, control and certainty) and they are empowered by economic, social and political inequalities that are likely to be around for a very long time. So, conspiracy theories can provide a sense of control in the face of feelings of powerlessness; conspiracy theorists and believers are able to reject official narratives and replace them with an account that makes better sense to them; conspiracy theories can enhance self-esteem, especially through a sense of having access to special knowledge and knowing something that others don’t; conspiracy theories can also reinforce aspects of group identity, most notably in a defensive sense, building on the idea that one’s social group is under threat from outsiders and others (basically strengthening ‘in-group vs out-group’, ‘us and them’ thinking); conspiracy theories can also explain one’s disadvantaged, dis-empowered or oppressed status (i.e. one is the victim of an overarching conspiracy of far more powerful forces, global elites, Illuminati (however these may be conceived; and as per some for the examples you provide here)).
Sorry, that was turning into a bit of lecture. Not my intent. My main point is that conspiracy beliefs can be co-extensive with nationalisms, religions, ideologies and a multitude of other systems that we are imbricated within. So I tend to hesitate when everything is reduced to economics or capitalism (although the examples you provide seem spot on). There is a plurality of 'monstrous' systems out there, capitalism simply may be the biggest.
I would agree with much of what you write and especially the dynamics of conspiracy theory. I depart a bit on the lack of plurality in the focus on capitalism. Economics is intertwined with every facet of our lives. Even the apparently free activity of admiring the view is predicated on you living in or travelling to a place of beauty both of which require money.
You are right that conspiracy theory can arise in social, political, religious, cultural and economic spheres but from my perspective these are not discreet areas and economics is arguably not just common but essential to all of them.
I would agree that we can't be separated from the economic system (similar things might be said about the political, cultural or linguistic systems that we inhabit). My main point is the degree to which conspiracy beliefs and theories are coupled to, originate from and/or serve particular systems. Basically an economic explanation may not always be the best or appropriate explanation; although such an explanation can always be applied, just as one might reach for an evolutionary, Freudian or other such explanations. So, to reach for an easy example, Epstein conspiracy theories probably have an economic component, but they also spin out into religious realms (Satanic panics) as well as the political (anti-democrat, hidden cabals and global elites). Or, with something like Flat Earth or Moon Landing conspiracy theories, it can be even harder to rely on or find an economic or capitalist explanation (although, I admit, not impossible).
Point taken!
A brilliant flipping of the conspiracy script. I’ve got a few contacts who have gone down this dark path but don’t really know how to engage with them and have felt like it’s a waste of time. It seems like believing one conspiracy means you believe them all. The problem is, as you explain here, there are understandable reasons for believing in many of them. We’re not helped by the inconsistencies in the Net Zero narrative or the obvious corruption on display with vaccine rollouts and PPE contracts.
Maybe I’ll have a go at using one of your arguments here in the future, although it won’t help that many followers of conspiracy theories also identify as capitalists.
The dissenters and the justifiably worried about the evidence for lockdowns, mask wearing and vaccines were, of course, on the money. It was a marketing exercise by big pharma. None of the measures were evidence based or necessary.
However, using the power of social media these people were corralled and targeted with nonsense climate crisis denials and a 'globalist' conspiracy trying to stop us using fossil fuels or eating animal products. I watched it happen. It was well organised and well funded. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/this-is-no-health-freedom-movement
The distrust of science in general was created, however the politicians themselves didn't present any robust evidence for anything, they just said 'trust the science'. I do trust 'science' ie the study of evidence and it revealed that eg the covid mRNA jab studies did not justify them for anyone, let alone justifying a mandate.
Jo, were you sceptical about vaccines before Covid, and are there vaccines which you think are safe?
I appreciate your exposure and analysis of the ways that conspiracists project and blame. Especially in the area of climate science. The insight that scientists have knowledge but not power is chilling indeed.
Perfect and timely critical analysis. In the US I believe we're struggling with another conspiracy theory grounded in truth: the widespread sexual abuse of children and the utter failure of governmental authorities to hold perpetrators accountable.
QAnon latched onto a truth about sexual abuse almost too horrific to face, so awful, in fact, that large numbers of experts misunderstood or rejected the data. In truth, wildly unacceptably large percentages of children are victims of sexual abuse. And also in truth, our criminal legal systems have utterly failed to hold the abusers accountable.
I think the relatively recent arc of this issue, over perhaps the past 50 years or so, began with data from victims that, once collected, shared, and put into context, seemed and perhaps still seems unbelievable. Can this many children really be victims? The initial and overwhelming systemic response to the evidence was to doubt and then sometimes blame victims. Believe perpetrators. Bar cases using statutes of limitation. Develop a theory of false memory syndrome. Impose standards of proof that are impossible to meet in crimes committed without witnesses other than the victim.
After proof, and reluctant acknowledgement of widespread systemic abuse came to light in cases involving the Catholic Church and other institutions, conspiracy theories still surfaced with respect to systemic child abuse because we still couldn't face reality. Conspiracy theories now compound the tragedies of institutional failure, serving those in power and protecting failed institutions. In reality, the failed systems of governance and law that let some of the most heinous perpetrators off the hook could be reformed and made far more effective. Instead, we're chasing conspiracy theories.
Finally, and another main point in response to this essay in addition to conspiracy theory dynamics, is that organized, criminal conspiracies involving sexual abuse, such as the Epstein/Maxwell criminal conspiracy, are absolutely explained by capitalism. Epstein and Maxwell enslaved and trafficked girls as a means to a few basic ends: to enrich themselves by laundering money, facilitating international finance, and influencing global affairs. Although Epstein and Maxwell were both personal abusers, their personal crimes were secondary to their larger and primary criminal aims. That's the real criminal conspiracy we should be trying to unpack and prosecute in addition to the sex crimes. Epstein was never held fully accountable for his sex crimes, and, to the extent that he was, it was used to hide the truth of his larger criminal enterprise. The same has been true of the Maxwell prosecution and conviction, and it very much looks like a Maxwell deal will be used to bury this truth even deeper.
Interesting article. Yet, the powers that be really do not care if some potential workers die -- we have a history of experimenting and medically torturing black and brown people, and our indigenous people.
It's the last part for me, that the first fuels a certain narcissism, while the second opens a pit of existential despair. The banality of evil is much harder to face than fantasies of supervillains.
Very good analysis. Thank you.
Anyone who wants to discuss conspiracy vs capitalism must understand this;
Corporate US (fossil fuels, animal ag, pharma, arms, tech, AI and media) want covid dissenters and others to BELIEVE that there’s a globalist conspiracy, who faked the climate crisis, to control us with climate policies. This has created support for fossil fuels and animal ag (pharma’s biggest client) in the face of growing awareness of the crisis. Plus it’s grown support for racism, Reform, MAGA and put a climate change denier in the White House. This is entirely consistent with their white supremacist patriarchal capitalist ethos.
Conspiracy theorist also provides a very effective way to sneer at and discredit anyone questioning the lack of evidence for drastic and harmful policies, anyone reluctant to allow themselves to be injected with unknown products made by convicted fraudsters or wishing to discuss the nature of disease itself. This is also entirely consistent with US corporates white supremacist patriarchal capitalist ethos.
There is zero evidence to support the imposition of any 'covid' policy or product. Maddeningly; this lack of scientific evidence is being used to create doubt over the wealth of scientific evidence for the anthropogenic climate crisis.
While I agree with your general thrust, I wonder a bit about individual arguments:
- "Deliberately targeting toddlers with a condition that may leave them unable to work is antithetical to capitalist logic." - Afair, the apartheid SA government had a research program for pathogens that would only kill Blacks. From a capitalist logic, this always read insane to me but there are apparently occasionally over-riding beliefs.
- "Governments everywhere are cutting back on the welfare state and care economy. Any body that cannot work is inhumanely perceived as a drain on the state’s resources." - yep, so culling some of the poor population would reduce the "drain". For me the argument's rather than a smaller unemployed population reduces downward wage pressure: large amounts of unemployed can be used to discipline workers by threatening them w/replacement.
Fantastic voice in this space thank you Rachel... you so seem to have got under the skin of one Jo Walker however..! 😅✌🏼🤞🏼🌏
Thank you Rachel, as always, for your excellent journalistic scrutiny. However, I have to say that this piece is rather weak and not up to your normal rigour.
I'm sure there are people who are completely blinded by the idea of conspiracies but to simply lump all people who are sceptical of certain aspects of mainstream belief into the conspiracy bubble and label them as people who reject science and can't see the influence of capitalism is simply lazy. Even if one were to have complete faith in science, which in itself is flawed because of it's limited perspective, one has to ask the question, 'who pays the scientist?'.
The debate around around Covid and vaccinations is too big to go into here but to suggest anybody hesitant of the Covid vaccine doesn't understand capitalism and has conflated our systems of exploitation with scientific expertise is to disregard the nuanced position taken by many. You rightly suggest we should trying to understand the subtleties of these positions and what drives them and then go on to give very simplistic explanations of some of the more popular conspiracy theories.
Whilst I agree that many conspiracy theories are over simplistic, in many cases so too is the dismissal of them.
I found this "analysis" of the COVID thing quite maddening. You left out a lot, including the fact that the supposed "vaccine" prevented neither transmission nor contraction. It was not a product of "The Science," it was a product of giant corporations who needed mandates and social coercion to sell their useless (at best) product.
Most of what was labeled "mis-dis-mal-information" about the whole shady fiasco later turned out to be true. (I won't bore you with running down the details - it's as boring as listing the reasons why the greenhouse effect is real.)
Conspiracy Theory: People who identify as either Left or Right are herded into information bubbles where their preferred narratives are endlessly reinforced to the point where independent thought becomes quite difficult if not impossible.
The Truth: Actually, that's pretty much it.
I am glad I came upon this discussion. It causes me to evaluate some things and consider where my beliefs come from.
A specific example:
- Consider who benefits from use of Covid vaccine
1. Those of us subject to getting Covid
2. Big pharma who make profits from more vaccine use
A valid question: who has tons of money to influence public opinion? (Big pharma?)
In general, I will weigh further information by first asking? Who makes money on acceptance of the premise of the argument