{"id":1433709,"date":"2023-10-21T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-10-21T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1433709"},"modified":"2023-10-21T11:00:00","modified_gmt":"2023-10-21T15:00:00","slug":"some-call-it-conspiracy-theory-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/some-call-it-conspiracy-theory-part-2\/1433709\/","title":{"rendered":"Some Call It Conspiracy Theory, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some Call It Conspiracy Theory, Part 2<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Iain Davis via The Disillusioned Blogger<\/a>,<\/em><\/p>\n

In Part 1<\/a> we contrasted the popular misconceptions about so-called \u201cconspiracy theorists\u201d with the well-grounded demographic research done on the individuals who, collectively, have had that pejorative label slapped on them.<\/strong> The demographic research reveals that there is no such thing as an identifiable group of people who can legitimately be called \u201cconspiracy theorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

The research also finds no credible evidence that people branded \u201cconspiracy theorists\u201d are prone to hold extremist views or have underlying psychological problems or pose a threat to democracy. These claims are all canards levelled against anyone who questions the Establishment<\/a> and the power it has amassed.<\/p>\n

We noted that political scientist Joseph Uscinski, who is perhaps the foremost scientist in the field of \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d research, cited the work<\/a> of philosopher Neil Levy as a \u201csimple and consistent standard\u201d by which academics could \u201cdemarcate between conspiracy theory and [real or \u201cconcrete\u201d] conspiracy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Professor Levy\u2019s \u201csimple and consistent standard\u201d was first outlined in his article \u201cRadically Socialized Knowledge and Conspiracy Theories<\/a>.\u201d In it, he pointed out that \u201cconspiracies are common features of social and political life, common enough that refusing to believe in their existence would leave us unable to understand the contours of our world.<\/strong>\u201d Levy therefore proposed that academics need a way to differentiate between the rational acceptance of acknowledged conspiracies and the supposedly irrational claims made by people who suspect conspiracies that haven\u2019t been officially approved for discussion.<\/p>\n

Levy suggested that \u201c[r]esponsible believers ought to accept explanations offered by properly constituted epistemic authorities.\u201d As we explained in Part 1<\/a>, he defined the epistemic authorities as:<\/p>\n

[. . .] the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists.<\/p>\n

In his listing of \u201cjournalists\u201d as epistemic authorities, Levy was almost certainly referring to journalists who work in the state controlled or corporate-owned legacy media<\/a> (LM), not to journalists in the independent media, who are frequently labelled conspiracy theorists<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Independent media is broadly defined<\/a> as:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[. . .] news media that is free from influence by the government or other external sources like corporations or influential people.<\/p>\n

Similarly, in Levy\u2019s view, only the \u201cright\u201d scientists and engineers are welcomed as \u201cepistemic authorities.\u201d For example, he categorically stated:<\/p>\n

Few responsible intellectuals reject the explanation of 9\/11 that cites the conspiratorial actions of a group of terrorists under the direction of Osama Bin Laden[.] [. . .] [M]ost of us have little doubt that it is true.<\/p>\n

Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a now-retired professor and department head of structural engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, led a multi-year study in which he and his team of engineer PhDs examined the structural collapse of World Trade Centre 7 (WTC 7). The conclusions they arrived at in their peer-reviewed report<\/a> thoroughly contradicted the official 9\/11 narrative. It seems unlikely that Prof. Levy would consider Dr. Hulsey to be a responsible intellectual or an \u201cepistemic authority.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his article, Levy opined that allegedly irrational \u201cconspiracy theorists\u201d could be identified by virtue of the fact that they disagree with the properly constituted epistemic authorities. Therefore, he claimed, their arguments and any evidence they presented should be dismissed. He wrote:<\/p>\n

[K]nowing that a proffered explanation conflicts with the official story (where, once again, the relevant authorities are epistemic) is enough for us rationally to reject the alternative.<\/p>\n

But there is nothing \u201crational\u201d about rejecting an explanation simply because it is offered by people with whom you disagree.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Presumably, like Levy, Uscinski would consider himself an \u201cepistemic authority\u201d in the field of conspiracy theory research. Thus, it is not surprising that, in light of Levy\u2019s \u201csimple and consistent standard,\u201d Uscinski concluded:<\/p>\n

[P]roperly constituted epistemic authorities determine the existence of conspiracies. [. . .] If the proper authorities say something is a conspiracy, then it is true; if they say it is a conspiracy theory, then it is likely false.<\/p>\n

That is to say, \u201cofficial\u201d narratives are considered true by default, and anything that calls them into question is, by default, a \u201cconspiracy theory.\u201d <\/strong>The term signifies to other intellectuals\u2014who don\u2019t question the pronouncements of the state\u2014that evidence which potentially undermines official narratives is, by definition, false. This conclusion is, of course, a load of nonsensical, fallacious gibberish.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory label is so widely applied these days that it has stuck. The legacy media (LM), in particular, has successfully deployed it as a tool of propaganda. Simply by spouting the words \u201cconspiracy theory,\u201d the LM have convinced the public to ignore any and all evidence that questions power.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s one such example. Following serious allegations of rape and sexual misconduct it brought against the comedian, author and political commentator Russell Brand, the LM immediately exploited the situation by criticising Brand\u2019s opinions and everyone who shared them.<\/p>\n

The BBC published Rachel Schraer\u2019s article Russell Brand: How the comedian built his YouTube audience on half-truths<\/a> just four days after the allegations were first reported by, among others, the BBC.<\/p>\n

The opening paragraph to the article reads:<\/p>\n

The first time Russell Brand really dipped his toe into the water of conspiracy theories, in early 2021, the effect was swift [. . .]. It won him a new income stream and a fresh army of fans.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rachel Schraer<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

We are told that Brand discusses \u201cconspiracy theories.\u201d This is a coded social signal from Schraer and the BBC to their readers and audience that everything Brand says should be discounted without examination\u2014including any evidence he may cite. This should be done for no other reason than Schraer and the BBC have labelled Brand a conspiracy theorist.<\/p>\n

In addition, the BBC casts the people who share Brand\u2019s views as conspiracy theorists who should be equally ignored.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the suggestion is made that Brand is peddling \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d as some sort of grift<\/a>.<\/strong> According to Schraer, the idea that independent media, such as Brand\u2019s \u201cStay Free\u201d channels, can be directly funded by its audience\u2014in this instance through viewer number contingent advertising revenue\u2014without compulsion<\/a> is \u201cevidence\u201d of his dubious motives. (Apparently the BBC is vehemently opposed to the free market of ideas.)<\/p>\n

Schraer explained what got the Brand ball rolling:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The door to this new fan base might have creaked open when Brand first discussed \u201cthe Great Reset\u201d \u2014 a vague set of proposals from an influential think tank to rebuild the global economy after Covid.<\/p>\n

The lame evidence Schraer cited to support her contention that the Great Reset is just some \u201cvague set of proposals\u201d was another BBC article<\/a>. Five journalists contributed to this piece, which was published in 2021 as part of the BBC\u2019s \u201cReality Check\u201d series.<\/p>\n

Collectively, the five BBC Reality Check \u201cjournalists\u201d exposed their own deceit in the second and third paragraphs:<\/p>\n

Believers spin dark tales about an authoritarian socialist world government run by powerful capitalists and politicians \u2014 a secret cabal that is broadcasting its plan around the world.<\/p>\n

Despite all the contradictions in the last sentence, thousands online have latched on to this latest reimagining of an old conspiracy theory [. . .].<\/p>\n

The problem is that no one accused by the Reality Check team of being a \u201cGreat Reset\u201d conspiracy theorist has ever alleged that the Great Reset plan was a \u201csecret\u201d or that the planners are a \u201csecret cabal.\u201d The fact that the well-known World Economic Forum (WEF) has broadcast its plans around the world obviously excludes the possibility that the plans were \u201csecret\u201d or even that the have acted secretively.<\/p>\n

The contradiction was a fabrication of the BBC Reality Check journalists\u2019 own making. It was seemingly inserted to support their accusation that those who criticised the WEF\u2019s Great Reset were alluding to a \u201csecret cabal.\u201d In reality, the critics were openly pointing their fingers directly at the WEF and its partners. No suggestions of a \u201csecret cabal\u201d or \u201csecret plans\u201d were ever made.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The BBC\u2019s evident intention was to impugn critics of the Great Reset by falsely claiming that their views were illogical, speculative assumptions and were therefore \u201cconspiracy theories.\u201d The BBC propagandists created this myth themselves in order to deliberately mislead their readers. This is the very definition of disinformation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Reality Check team then reported that the Great Reset initiative was launched by King\u2014then Prince\u2014Charles as a plan to remodel the global economy. They talked about the WEF\u2019s undemocratic \u201cpower to lobby [. . .] for ideas which could potentially transform the global economy.\u201d They added that the WEF and its Davos delegates have \u201chuge influence on world events.\u201d They even raised the point that there are legitimate concerns about the potential impact of digital technology\u2014vigorously pushed in the Great Reset\u2014\u201don civil liberties and jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n

In short, the BBC Reality Check team gave a reasonable account of the arguments put forward by those whom they then dismissed out of hand by labelling them \u201cconspiracy theorists.\u201d The BBC \u201cjournalists\u201d performed this trick by making up a reported opinion about \u201csecret cabal[s]\u201d and then falsely ascribing it to Great Reset critics.<\/p>\n

In order to deter their readers from any further examination of the Great Reset, the BBC\u2019s alleged journalists claimed that the Great Reset itself was \u201clight on specific detail.\u201d This, again, was pure disinformation.<\/p>\n

The same journalists had to admit the existence of a published book called COVID-19: The Great Reset<\/a>. In it, co-authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote:<\/p>\n

[O]ur objective was to write a relatively concise and simple book to help the reader understand what\u2019s coming in a multitude of domains. [. . .] The reference information appears at the end of the book and direct attributions have been minimized [in the text].<\/strong><\/p>\n

The references include links to WEF documents such as \u201cCOVID-19 Risks Outlook A Preliminary Mapping and Its Implications<\/a>.\u201d This is just one document that forms part of the WEF\u2019s extensive alleged risk-mapping program. The mapping program, in turn, informs the WEF\u2019s highly detailed Strategic Intelligence<\/a>, which the WEF claims will enable it to \u201cmake sense of the complex forces driving transformational change across economies, industries, and global issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

There really isn\u2019t any facet of economy, industry, or indeed any global issues or aspects of our lives<\/a> for which the WEF doesn\u2019t already have a detailed, self-serving, transformational plan. The BBC\u2019s claim that the Great Reset lacks \u201cspecific detail\u201d is absurd. The plan couldn\u2019t be more detailed or specific.<\/p>\n

Rachel Schraer\u2019s subsequent assertion\u2014that the Great Reset represents a \u201cvague set of proposals\u201d\u2014was complete nonsense based upon the BBC\u2019s own propaganda. The objective was to convince BBC readers that criticism of the Great Reset is a \u201cconspiracy theory.\u201d It is self-evident that both Schraer\u2019s and Reality Check\u2019s articles served as a defence of the WEF\u2019s Great Reset.<\/p>\n

We have still other good reasons to question Schraer\u2019s judgement.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dr Simon Goddek, a scientist who turned to journalism and has questioned the safety and efficacy of the COVID jabs\u2014thereby excluding himself from Uscinski and Levy\u2019s \u201cepistemic authorities\u201d\u2014shared a black-humoured joke as a social media meme. It showed the ageing physical decline of former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. Goddek quipped, \u201c[w]as it her shots, mRNA or Meth?\u201d<\/p>\n

This joke was subsequently picked up by BBC Verify<\/a> propagandist Shayan Sardarizadeh, who re-shared it with the comment: \u201c4 million views for this nonsense from a blue tick conspiracy theorist.\u201d Goddek\u2019s post was indeed \u201cnonsense\u201d\u2014because it was a joke.<\/p>\n

When Schraer re-posted Sardrizadeh\u2019s comment, she displayed a woeful lack of comprehension and a notable lack of a sense of humour. She added her own inane interpretation<\/a> with this absurd headline:<\/p>\n

Breaking: Conspiracy theory-peddlers blame the Passage of Time on Vaccines.<\/p>\n

This may seem like a trivial matter. But it\u2019s not. Like Marianna Spring<\/a>, Rachel Schraer is another BBC specialist disinformation reporter<\/a>. That Schraer apparently can\u2019t tell the difference<\/a> between a joke and \u201cdisinformation\u201d certainly brings her alleged \u201cspecialism\u201d into question.<\/p>\n

To fully appreciate how the \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d label is deployed by the legacy media (LM), we can look at the recent video<\/a> by journalist and broadcaster Andrew Neil, who is a former editor of the Sunday Times, an ex-BBC presenter, and the current chairman of the Spectator. When he left the BBC, Neil was reported<\/a> to have been \u201cat the heart of the BBC\u2019s political coverage for the best part of three decades.\u201d<\/p>\n

Andrew Neil<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

In a discussion with Sam Leith, the Spectator\u2019s literary editor, about the Russell Brand allegations, Neil lamented that social media had enabled too many people\u2014most of whom he considered to be stupid\u2014to express their opinions. Based on this comment, it is evident that, if Neil is familiar with the work of Uscinski and Levy, he would probably consider himself a journalist member of the so-called \u201cepistemic authorities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neil spoke about the four-year investigation conducted by the legacy media that eventually produced the Brand allegations. He described it in glowing terms and noted that the independent media\u2014which he called \u201cthe alternative media\u201d\u2014had neither the \u201cresources nor the expertise to do\u201d such an exhaustive investigation.<\/p>\n

The Spectator YouTube channel that Neil heads has 304K subscribers. By comparison, Russell Brand has 6.6M YouTube subscribers<\/strong>. Consequently, his channel had considerably more resources than does the Spectator. However, following the alleged LM investigation of Brand, YouTube demonetised his account<\/a>, so now Brand\u2019s channel resources are flagging by comparison.<\/p>\n

Unlike the independent media, which is almost entirely funded<\/a> by reader and audience donations, the legacy media (LM) is funded by either corporate advertising or, in the case of the BBC, coercive license fees. UK print news media has been declining for years<\/a> as people increasingly consume news online. In addition, state broadcasters, such as the BBC and Channel Four<\/a>, are shedding UK viewers in their millions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, as Neil observed, LM budgets are enormous compared to the shoestring income cobbled together by the independent media. That stark contrast hasn\u2019t stopped the Establishment, which relies on the LM for its propaganda and owns most of it<\/a>, from panicking.<\/p>\n

Their panic explains the commissioning of the Cairncross Review<\/a>\u2014intended to provide some sort of rationale for propping up the LM.<\/p>\n

Ironically, the Cairncross Review concluded that the LM needed \u201cnew sources of funding, removed from direct government control.\u201d Of course, genuinely independent news media have already achieved new sources of funding by going directly to their audiences, some of whom value the independent viewpoint enough to support it financially.<\/p>\n

Dame Cairncross (DBE, FRSE, FAcSS) apparently considered the independent media funding model to be rubbish. She ruled it out because, as she put it, \u201cthe stories people want to read may not always be the ones that they ought to read.\u201d She practically declared that what the public \u201cought to read\u201d should be stipulated by the \u201cepistemic authorities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Instead, Cairncross determined that \u201cthe creation of a new Institute for Public Interest News\u201d was needed. To ensure this new overseeing body would be \u201cindependent,\u201d Dame Cairncross recommended that it \u201cbuild strong partnerships with the BBC\u201d and be funded by the UK government.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Her suggestion meant that, just like the current independent media, the LM of the future would be funded by the public. The difference between the two funding models was that Cairncross\u2019s would not be voluntary but achieved through enforced taxation. Through the new body she envisioned, instead of the public choosing which media outlets they want to support the \u201cepistemic authorities\u201d and the government would decide for them.<\/p>\n

What Frances Cairncross ultimately recommended was state regulation of the internet<\/a> as a means of protecting the LM from public opinion. These regulations would tell the people which media outlets they should \u201ctrust\u201d and, hopefully, prevent them from supporting the \u201cwrong\u201d media.<\/p>\n

Dame Cairncross\u2019 review dovetailed perfectly with the progress of the UK\u2019s Online Safety Act<\/a> (OSA) through parliament. In her Review, she wrote:<\/p>\n

The government will want to consider these recommendations in the context of its parallel work on online harms, disinformation and digital competition, to determine whether the recommendations set out here should be pursued separately or as part of broader packages of measures. In particular, it is for government to determine how best to design and execute policy relating to the activities of the online platforms, including any regulatory oversight. This Review is neutral [. . . .]<\/p>\n

Neutral?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The OSA has passed all UK parliamentary reading stages and should receive Royal Assent<\/a> any day now. It has established Ofcom as the internet regulator. The purpose of the Act is supposedly to improve public safety online\u2014especially child safety. But it is patently obvious<\/a> that the real objective of the OSA is to stop people from sharing information on social media that the government wishes to prevent from being shared\u2014the article you are reading, for example.<\/p>\n

The OSA will limit the online reach of the independent media. Accomplishing this aim is of vital importance to the Establishment\u2014all the moreso because public interest in the LM\u2019s online news reporting is also plummeting<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In addition, the OSA provides significant protection for each of the regulated media organisations that the state controls and categorises as a \u201crecognised news publisher.\u201d This means every legacy outlet plus favoured \u201cindependent\u201d media outlets such as Bellingcat, which is also funded by the Establishment<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So, given its protective care and vast resources, what alleged \u201cexpertise\u201d did the LM bring to its investigation of Russell Brand, do you suppose? For a full account of that claimed journalism, you can read this article<\/a>. But perhaps I should warn you in advance that, while the allegations against Brand are very serious and should be investigated by the police, the LM \u201cteam\u201d disappointingly didn\u2019t present a shred of real evidence to support those reported allegations.<\/p>\n

Worse, the LM evidently fabricated purported evidence to mislead its readers and viewing audience, thereby undermining the accounts of the potential victims.<\/p>\n

Yet, according to our Andrew Neil over at the Spectator, for the legacy media to have expended its considerable resources over a period of four years to produce this voluminous research (which we can call hamfisted detritus) requires great \u201cexpertise.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the Spectator interview, Leith asked Neil for his opinion about the possibility that the LM had launched a coordinated attack on Brand. Here is how Neil replied:<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no virtue to it at all[,] and the people who are pushing this line, that there\u2019s a kind of conspiracy to do him down, are the very people who believe in all sorts of conspiracies as well. That vaccinations put little microchips into our bodies, that the Bush administration was really behind 9\/11, and all the other nonsense. Of course, naturally we live in a world run by lizard people. We all know who they are [the lizard people], the mainstream media knows who they are, we\u2019re just too frightened to point out the lizards among us. They\u2019re conspiracists on everything now.<\/p>\n

It is possible, though hard to substantiate, that a tiny minority of people labelled as conspiracy theorists believe there are microchips in the COVID shots. While the advent of motes<\/a> makes this claim at least feasible, the vast majority of people who questioned the jabs\u2014and who were also labelled as conspiracy theorists by the \u201cepistemic authorities\u201d\u2014were more concerned about the experimental status, the potential unknown risks and the questionable efficacy of the jabs, not to mention the absence of any completed trials<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Neil\u2019s tiresome \u201clizards\u201d refrain was based solely on the opinion of one prominent so-called \u201cconspiracy theorist,\u201d David Icke, whose extremely speculative hypothesis of the \u201cSumerian Anunnaki\u201d was based upon his interpretation of a few Gnostic texts\u2014the Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.\u2014and the work of scholars such as Zecharia Sitchin.<\/p>\n

No one who seriously questioned the COVID jabs, including tens of thousands of UK doctors and nurses<\/a>, did so because they thought the royals were lizards<\/strong>. Nor, for that matter, did the structural engineers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks question the official account of 9\/11 because they imagined that former US President Bush is a shape-shifting, pan-dimensional reptile.<\/p>\n

Let us step back and ask: If Andrew Neil is, as he claims, the intellectual superior of anyone who suggests there may have been a coordinated LM attack on Brand, then why does he overlook the clear-as-day fact that the allegations against Brand were reported simultaneously by almost the entire legacy media on both sides of the Atlantic? Doesn\u2019t such an absolute fact, such irrefutable evidence, point to at least the possibility of planned coordination?<\/p>\n

And because that is the case, we are left with only one conclusion: Neil deliberately used a tried-and-true propaganda technique<\/a> called the straw man argument<\/a>. That is, he attributed preposterous beliefs to people he disagrees with in order to falsely \u201cdebunk,\u201d with contrived ease, arguments they had never made. This technique is also called logical fallacy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

He then used a related technique termed \u201ccomposition fallacy<\/a>\u201d to manipulatively claim that the opinion of one person whom he labels a conspiracy theorist (he is referring to Icke without naming him) represents the views of everyone he labels a conspiracy theorist. This is an extremely common LM tactic.<\/p>\n

Did Neil say anything about the common suspicion of a possible coordinated attack on Brand? Yes, he did:<\/p>\n

[Conspiracism] is a defence that is quite hard to deal with, because it is so ludicrous. It is a defence that doesn\u2019t need facts. It is a culture in which Russell Brand lived and profited, or at least did until YouTube pulled the plug on his revenues. So that\u2019s what they deal in, they don\u2019t deal in the gathering of evidence. [. . .] All these conspiracy theorists can have their absurd opinions about what\u2019s really going on here with Russell Brand, but to establish what\u2019s going on, to produce the evidence, takes investigative journalism.<\/p>\n

It is worth reiterating yet again that the investigation into the Brand allegations provided nothing but allegations. This does not mean that the allegations aren\u2019t true. But the LM journalists have not provided anything approaching the \u201cevidence\u201d that Neil claims exists.<\/p>\n

Notice that Neil used the word \u201cludicrous\u201d to signal to his audience that the people he calls \u201cconspiracy theorists\u201d hold ludicrous beliefs. But think about it: His claim was based on his own ludicrous assertions and logical fallacies\u2014not on any actual evidence.<\/p>\n

So, if we are to take Neil at his word and \u201cestablish what\u2019s going on,\u201d then we need to look at the \u201cevidence\u201d in the hope of establishing some \u201cfacts.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

OK, let\u2019s do that. It is a fact that, following publications of the allegations, the LM did not immediately set about finding further evidence to support the possible victims\u2019 claims. Instead, the LM turned its attention to attacking the \u201cconspiratorial\u201d views of Brand and his followers.<\/p>\n

Example #1. As soon as the allegations against Brand were published, the BBC wrote<\/a> that he had \u201cdeveloped a cult following\u201d and had \u201cdabbled in conspiracy theories.\u201d To those charges the BBC added the scintillating \u201cfact\u201d that Brand had built a following during the alleged COVID-19 pandemic because he \u201cdiscussed conspiracy theories surrounding the disease.\u201d<\/p>\n

Example #2. Two days later, using the same alleged \u201ccult\u201d theme, the Metro published an article titled \u201cFrom Covid denial to mainstream media hatred \u2013 Inside Russell Brand\u2019s conspiracy-fuelled cult online following<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Example #3. A couple of days after that, on the other side of the planet, Australia\u2019s ABC News<\/a> claimed that Brand\u2019s followers respond to his \u201crants\u201d simply because he is \u201ccontroversial\u201d and that his audience is comprised of \u201cpeople chasing conspiracy theories.\u201d<\/p>\n

Example #4. Following the allegations against Brand, the UK government decided that it should express its opinion on a potential criminal investigation. No less than the Prime Minister\u2019s office issued an official statement<\/a> declaring that \u201cthese are very serious and concerning allegations.\u201d<\/p>\n

The examples are endless. We don\u2019t have space to cite them all. How odd, then, for Andrew Neil to have claimed in his interview that no one \u201ccould give a monkey\u2019s _ _ _ _\u201d about Russell Brand. The \u201cevidence\u201d thoroughly contradicts Andrew Neil. It appears that the entire LM, from all four corners of the globe and the UK government, are very interested in the Russell Brand allegations.<\/p>\n

The UK government\u2019s publicised opinion was followed up by emailed letters from Dame Caroline Dinenage DBE MP to numerous social media and online news sites, including the Chinese-owned TikTok<\/a> and the video hosting service<\/a> Rumble, requesting that Brand be demonetised on those online platforms.<\/p>\n

Caroline Dinenage is Baroness Lancaster of Kimbolton, a leading member of the Establishment and a member of the House of Commons\u2019 Culture, Media and Support Select Committee. It is no surprise that this very committee was instrumental in creating the Online Safety Act. Moreover, when the baroness was the Minister of State for Digital and Sport from February 2020 to September 2021, she had ministerial responsibility for guiding the passage of the Online Safety Bill toward becoming the Online Safety Act.<\/p>\n

The common law concept of \u201cinnocent until proven guilty,\u201d which Neil conceded was an important principle of UK liberal democracy, seems to mean practically nothing to Dinenage.<\/p>\n

The notion is bandied about in some quarters of the LM<\/a> that Dinenage was acting independently. That may be true. But why, then, did she use the official House of Commons letterhead for her correspondence?<\/strong><\/p>\n

As yet, there has been no official statement from the Culture, Media and Support Select Committee on the allegations against Brand. Reportedly, it has merely acknowledged that only \u201csome\u201d of the letters sent out under its name were approved. Considering that all the letters under its letterhead were shameful examples of rank authoritarianism<\/a>, the fact that any of them were apparently approved indicates the dictatorial tendencies of the Select Committee as a whole.<\/p>\n

What actual facts have been established?<\/p>\n

First, it is a fact that the LM has exploited the allegations and has deployed the composition fallacy to discredit both Brand\u2019s and his social media followers\u2019 opinions.<\/p>\n

Second, it is a fact that the allegations about Brand emerged at the same time that the Online Safety Bill passed its final reading stage. The Brand allegations grabbed all the headlines, leaving virtually no room for prominent coverage of the imminent UK censorship law by the LM. Thoroughly distracting the UK public.<\/p>\n

Third, it is a fact that the purpose of the Online Safety Act is to shore up the dwindling reach of the LM and censor its independent media competition.<\/p>\n

Fourth, it is a fact that Brand and his followers are considered part of the independent media, which the LM accuses of being conspiracy theorists.<\/p>\n

Fifth, it is a fact that formative figures in the UK government have used the allegations published by the LM to attempt to limit the reach of someone who has millions of followers and whom they accuse of being a conspiracy theorist.<\/p>\n

Sixth, it is a fact that limiting the reach of popular conspiracy theorists is exactly what the Online Safety Act is designed to achieve.<\/p>\n

There is solid evidence supporting each of these facts. <\/strong>So, what did Andrew Neil, a presumed member of the \u201cepistemic authorities,\u201d make of the facts and supporting evidence that he insists he and the entire legacy media he champions hold so dear? In his Spectator interview, Neil had this to say:<\/p>\n

I think because Russell Brand\u2019s position, in terms of a variety of conspiracies, is very similar to their conspiracies, they regard him as he\u2019s one of us. So, regardless of what he\u2019s accused of, we need to rally behind him. We need to get behind him, they\u2019re trying to pick us off. I mean, don\u2019t forget, they\u2019re conspiracy theorists so therefore they are paranoid. They\u2019re not just paranoid, they do know most sensible people are against them. And I think it\u2019s a kind of rallying defence to look after one of their own.<\/p>\n

The Spectator interview was posted on the September 23rd, after the Dinenage letters and the LM reports we\u2019ve just discussed were published. In other words, Neil had mounds of material at his fingertips, but he chose to discard all the evidence and ignore the numerous facts pointing to a possible political motive for the global legacy media\u2019s and UK government\u2019s pursuit of Brand. Instead, he simply cast all the evidence and facts aside and dove into his \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d accusations.<\/p>\n

This is a classic case of how the \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d label is applied by people, such as Neil, who do not wish to acknowledge contradictory evidence or facts. The \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d charge enables Neil and his legacy media cohorts to create what they pretend are unquestionable narratives, which they expect their readership and viewership to \u201ctrust\u201d on the flimsy basis of their laughable, self-aggrandising claim to be \u201cepistemic authorities.\u201d It should be noted that this is precisely what \u201cthe Science\u2122\u201d of conspiracism decrees.<\/p>\n

When Sam Leith, Neil\u2019s interviewer, pointed out that so-called conspiracy theorists cannot be categorised by any single political ideology, Neil didn\u2019t pause to consider the implications of his underling\u2019s accurate statement.<\/p>\n

Rather, he embarked on an anecdotal reminiscence as if trying to justify his bizarre conspiracy theory view. Having dismissed all evidence to the contrary, he falsely asserted that conspiracy theory lies only on the extremes of politics and that the far left and the far right (conspiracy theorists) all believe essentially the same thing.<\/p>\n

He opined that both alleged extremist wings, and therefore all of the conspiracy theorists he imagines, hate liberal democracy. His conclusion:<\/p>\n

People like Russell Brand are no friends of liberal democracy and neither are his supporters.<\/p>\n

As we discussed in Part 1, this is mindless proselytising. Entrenched Establishment elitists seriously expect us to accept that the people who most fiercely protect and seek to exercise our democratic right to question power are all extremist conspiracy theorists.<\/p>\n

Neil apparently believes that liberal democracy is embodied by the public\u2019s trust in the Establishment\u2019s \u201cepistemic authorities.\u201d Consequently, in his evident view, anyone who challenges the \u201cauthorities\u201d and their pronouncements and edicts is undermining liberal democracy. But what he is describing is actually the polity of a totalitarian fascist state<\/a>\u2014a complete inversion of liberal democracy<\/a> and the principles it is supposedly based upon.<\/p>\n

It is evident that, from Neil\u2019s perspective, only stupid people\u2014conspiracy theorists\u2014question epistemic truth, as presumably defined by his narrow, authoritarian class. He views all such stupid people as unintelligent extremists who seek to destroy the social order he disingenuously calls liberal democracy.<\/p>\n

Anyone who uses the \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d label does so, not because they value the evidence, the facts or the dialectic, but because they will not countenance any challenge to their worldview or any dissent from their claimed authority.<\/p>\n

The \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d charge is an authoritarian propaganda construct, intentionally created to censor legitimate, fact-based opinion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is time we stand up to the \u201cepistemic authorities\u201d and reject their elitist, authoritarian pretence of intellectual superiority.<\/p>\n

It is time to insist that all evidence is discussed, that all the facts are established and reported to the public.<\/p>\n

It is time to reject the state propagandist\u2019s \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d canard.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nSat, 10\/21\/2023 – 07:00<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bhttps:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/political\/some-call-it-conspiracy-theory-part-2<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Some Call It Conspiracy Theory, Part 2 Authored by Iain Davis via The Disillusioned Blogger, In Part 1 we contrasted the popular misconceptions about so-called…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1433709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbimBl-60Yl","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1433709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1433709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1433709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1433709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1433709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1433709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}