I Am A Conspiracy Theorist

The Control of Information. How the rich and powerful shape news and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown.

I am a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ I believe men and women of wealth conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called ‘an idiot’. If you believe stuff but fear the label, then you are ‘a coward.’(i)here Tweet by Professor Dave Callum, Cornell University, 2019.

Preamble. This article was first published on 14 April 2024. Today I am updating it, and also adding new references. However, since April many referenced articles have disappeared and cannot be located on internet searches, on any search engine. This includes articles on depopulation, and an article by a New Zealand whistleblower on the temporal association between the roll out of Covid vaccines and excess deaths. In fact, academic styled articles on the drive to depopulation are difficult to find, although there are many fact checkers such as Reuters and Snopes whose articles tell you that depopulation is a conspiracy theory. This demonstrates to you (and me) that those who control information are getting more desperate to hide their tracks and the agendas we are facing.

Conspiracy theories.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term ‘conspiracy theory’ as ‘a belief that an event or a situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people’ (ii)here. Iain Davis, in his essay A Conspiracy Theorist Confesses considers a number of definitions and concludes that the term simply means ‘the reporting of evidence indicating a plan between two or more people to commit an illegal or nefarious act’(iii)here. He adds that what is called a conspiracy theory is an opinion or argument, the merit of which is solely defined by the strength or weakness of supporting information offered. Davis points out that although those who conspire to create nefarious or illegal acts would like to keep their secrets hidden, some were exposed by those who highlighted evidence. This includes Operation Gladio, the Iran Contras, the Lavon Affair, and the 2001 anthrax letter hoax(iv)here.

Davis found some derogatory descriptions of conspiracy theorists, such as the Wikipedia definition – ‘an attempt to ignore more plausible explanations’, based on ‘prejudice or insufficient evidence’ and ‘circular reasoning’. Davis describes this definition as relying heavily on opinion, and highly subjective. However, in mainstream discourses, this depiction of a delusional conspiracy theorist is the popularly accepted meaning.

Throughout millennia, rumours have spread about those in power. It was in the 1960s that the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ became popular as a derogatory term to describe those who questioned official narratives, such as events surrounding the Kennedy assassination(v)here. A CIA memo addressing criticism of the Commission that investigated the assassination stated “…employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics…Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it”. (released to The New York Times in 1976 after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The weaponised term has been used ever since, instead of refuting persistent, challenging or embarrassing rumours with reasoned argument, those who question official accounts are labelled in order to silence them. Negative terms including conspiracy theorists, antisemites, anti-science, covidiots, racists, terrorists, misogynists, extremist right-wingers, or Marxists are commonly used terms. Recently, those who are derogatorily called conspiracy theorists have been further smeared by academics who describe those who dare to question policy as narcissists(vi)here.

Those who question policy should be proud of the conspiracy theorist label; everyone should be prepared to question those who rule them. Inevitably, the powerful get together to make decisions, such as the boards of large corporates, the Bilderbergers, Trilateralists, the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), the World Economic Forum (WEF); the United Nations; the World Health Organisation (WHO), and world banks. There are many other organisations attended by the immensely wealthy. Most of their meetings are under Chatham House rules, which means the content of discussions is kept secret.

Sander Van Der Linden (VDLinden) in his book Foolproof states that conspiracy theories can be defined by certain characteristics. (1) they are contradictory (2) people are deeply suspicious of the official narrative (3) people see nefarious intent (4) people think something must be wrong (5) there is a persecuted victim (6) conspiracy theorists are immune to evidence and (7) they reinterpret events and give them other meanings.

Using VDLinden’s framework and the example of Covid-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness, I will answer this as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. (1) Governments throughout the world gave changing scenarios for the vaccine efficiency, starting at 95% whilst constantly deceasing the efficiency rate (vii)here. At the point of roll out, the vaccine was still being trialled, there was limited short term data on safety or efficiency, no long term safety data, and the mRNA and adenovirus vector technologies used to deliver this vaccine were untried. Without supporting evidence, vaccines were described by authorities as ‘safe and effective’. As breakthrough cases occurred, claims of vaccine efficiency went down to 37% (viii)here, later it was then stated that although the vaccine did not prevent infection and transmission, it would stop hospitalisation of death (ix)here. ‘Boosters’ were recommended. Governments also were forced to acknowledge side effects such as clotting (x)here, and myocarditis (xi)here. (2) Health professionals, statisticians and scientists noted report systems e.g. such as Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the USA, and the Yellow Card Report in the UK revealed serious adverse events including death following vaccination (xii)here. As these concerns were not taken seriously, many became more sceptical of the official vaccine narrative. (3) As injections were offered to children (xiii)here and those who had side effects from earlier vaccinations (xiv)here, with some governments mandating vaccines (xv)here, ‘conspiracy theorists’ questioned whether there may be a nefarious motive (4) and felt that ‘something is wrong’. (5) Many with vaccine injuries were ignored, and could not get adequate support from the medical profession. Some were told their serious symptoms were caused by mental illness and stress (xvi)here and (xvii)here Support groups were removed from social media, isolating the vaccine injured (xviii)here. Some who refused to take the vaccine lost employment (xix)here, doctors who questioned vaccine safety lost their jobs and were subjected to a smear campaign (xx)here, the unvaccinated were refused admission to social events. Thus people were persecuted for insisting on bodily autonomy or for using their right to free speech. (6) Statistics confirmed many of the suspicions of ‘conspiracy theorists’. Vaccine trial results were released but only after a court decision in USA forced their publication, and several pages of serious adverse events and deaths were listed in Pfizer’s own documents (xxi)here. The mainstream media did not investigate the Pfizer documents after they were published. Some governments stopped publishing their own statistics as scientists and statisticians were using them to reveal that the vaccine was not safe and effective (xxii)here. In the face of this, ‘conspiracy theorists’ did not believe reassurances from health officials and governments when they stated that the benefits of vaccination outweighed the risks (xxiii)here, because no risk assessment was produced. (7) Some ‘conspiracy theorists’ are concerned as despite the red flag raised by recorded adverse events, most vaccine brands are still on the market. ‘Conspiracy theorists’ note the large profits of pharmaceutical companies (xxiv)here, and the temporal association with excess deaths. Excess deaths have not been investigated by governments and health authorities (xxv)here. In the circumstances, questioning policy is both reasonable and logical, and concerns should be addressed, rather than smearing concerned persons.

Thus, governments’ own narrative itself fits with the description of VDLinden’s conspiracy theory. The more governments try to control thought and behaviour, rather than respond to the concerns and wellbeing of their citizens, the more ‘conspiracy theories’ will arise. We all need to be exposed to and debate different, and even uncomfortable, viewpoints, nothing that is legal and non-violent should be off limits. Everyone has a right to be prepared to defend their arguments with the best possible evidence, whilst offering full respect to their opponents. Name calling, smear campaigns and violence needs to be replaced with polite and thoughtful interactions.

The new notion of safetyism should also be off limits; people can take the opportunity to listen to viewpoints that challenge their own. Those views are not ‘violence’ or ‘hate speech’ but just another perspective, perhaps one that they dislike. It gives everyone an opportunity to learn, including the notion that ‘the Other’ has a right to hold their own opinions, and to express themselves freely.

Below are topics where the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is often applied.

Environmental issues.

Is there a consensus on climate amongst scientists? Are sceptical climate scientists being silenced – or coerced? Do minority opinions matter? – throughout history, less popular ideas have often been proven right. Are scientists who are paid to undertake research likely to produce research conclusions that contradict the wishes of their sponsors, and thus risk getting no further grants?

The issues attributed to climate change include pollution/waste/overuse of the world’s resources/industrialisation of farming/reduced diversity/fossil fuel issues/rising global temperatures/rising CO2 levels. Are these all part of the same problem, are they all caused by human activity, or are they different issues with different causes that have been conflated?

Are the proposed solutions such as reducing the movement of people, 15 minute cities, low traffic zones, turning agricultural land to woodland/wild land, reducing meat and milk production, and encouraging electric vehicles the best solutions? Are gas emissions of cows more threatening than the chemical and gas emissions of the world’s vast military?

Public health.

Why are individual medical records being shared with third parties, including international private healthcare companies? (xxvi)here. Why are medical journals highly subsidised by pharmaceutical companies, and why do retired editors say that peer review is flawed, and pharma has too much influence on what is published in such journals? (xxvii)here. Is it right that bodies that regulate health products accept large sums of money from pharmaceutical companies? (xxviii)here. How dangerous is big pharma, whose business model necessarily puts the interests of its shareholders rather than its users?

Lifestyle and nutrition.

Should people be encouraged to live a healthier lifestyle rather than take pills to deal with symptoms? (xxix)here. Would people be healthier if their use of medicines was reduced?

Do governments, scientists and the medical profession give sound advice concerning diet? Do doctors have sufficient training in nutrition? Are the foods that are recommended the healthiest types of diet?

Why are areas that grow food being taken out of production, despite forecasts of a looming food crisis? (xxx)here. Taxes and decarbonisation schemes are removing farmers from their land; farmland is being rewilded, or allocated for tree planting or leisure use, whilst the food supply is decreasing. Why are cattle numbers reducing (xxxi)here, and what effect will this have on the price of meat, milk and cheese – and the natural fertilisation of farmland?

9/11.

Since 9/11, ‘conspiracy theorists’ have alleged that the disastrous events of that day were rigged in some way, and buildings may have been demolished by controlled demolition. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE9/11T) have campaigned for many years to get a new commission to examine the evidence surrounding this event but their campaign has not been acknowledged (xxxii)here. Why is the mainstream media not reporting the views of experts challenging the official narrative?

Sex and gender.

Why are some schools giving explicit sexual instruction to children from primary school age onwards? (xxxiii)here. Why is this starting to happen in many parts of the world at the same time? Should schools encourage gender fluidity?

Should adult people be allowed to select and change their gender at will? If a woman thinks using reproductive parts of the body as a description of the whole, such as ‘people with a cervix’ is demeaning or offensive, is this important? Why is the term ‘woman’ often being omitted from official documents, when men are described as simply as men? (xxxiv)here.

Are women who want to protect women’s hard won rights transphobic? Should women be consulted when a trans women wants to enter their space, such as women’s sporting events, female changing rooms, female toilets, female hospital wards, female prisons, and women’s refuges? Should a biological man who has been convicted of violence against women be allowed into a women’s prison, simply because s/he says s/he is a woman? How do you know s/he is not using this as a ploy to victimise women, for exhibitionism purposes, to act as a voyeur, or to take advantage of sexual opportunities?

Elections and democracy.

Is the current system of elections and political parties working, or does it no longer support democracy? Does lobbying unduly influence governments to pass laws that favour corporates, rather than citizens?

Why are some politicians such as Putin, Trump and Corbyn demonised, whereas others such as Obama, Bin Salman and Blair glorified, even though their terms in office were associated with increased conflict? Why is the WHO’s Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Treaty (xxxv)here hardly mentioned by the media, although this will affect national sovereignty?

War.

Is peace possible, with such an extensive and pervasive military industrial complex? Weapons and bombs also create waste products that cause overwhelming environmental damage, far more than producing agricultural products. Why are we prioritising death and destruction over life?

Why do the media not report history and context, so that ordinary people can understand why some groups or countries resort to violence and war? Why is ‘the enemy’ always dehumanised, and their voices censored?

Surveillance and control.

Why are people not aware of the control of information, including government funding of increased surveillance, and the funding of fact checking, content management, and media literacy by those with immense wealth?

Why have so many laws that restrict citizens’ rights recently been passed all over the world? Why do we need digital ID? Why are countries adopting biometric authentication? Why is there no debate about the use of technology for increased surveillance?

Migration.

Why are so many people from the Global South trying to move to Western counties? Do Western policies such as wars, embargos, decarbonisation projects, and unfair trade agreements create situations where many can no longer survive in their homeland? Why are so many young men of military age moving to countries like Europe, UK and USA? Why are traffickers blamed for an increase in migration when clearly they would not be able to find many takers if people could afford a decent living in their own home countries?

Conclusion

There are many polarising and provocative topics that are worthy of debate. The trend is for those who challenge policy to be smeared, or labelled negatively. The use of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is one such derogatory term. Such terms are used to silence others, rather than refuting allegations with reasoned argument. These terms have been used to delegitimise dissenting opinions since the 1960s, but this trend has more noticeable since 2020.

An academic, VDLinden, has devised a framework in order to assist the recognition of conspiracy theories. However, on applying this framework to the discourses that surround vaccination programmes, the official narrative was exposed as complying with the conspiracy theory framework. The challenging of official narratives and imposed policy is something everyone has a right to do. Those who do so ought to be proud of their stance and should not be deterred by name calling.

Please feel free to challenge any of my views – I welcome it, and I shall learn a lot from what you say.