After his End Times prediction failed millionaire radio prophet Harold Camping eventually came up with an excuse. During his show "Open Forum" on May 23, 2011 he explained that the world would still end in October. But it was a process, he said, and we were just getting started. That was a relief. At first I thought millions of people had wasted days of time and energy fussing over some offbeat theory.
There are so many out there. Obama is a secret Muslim – millions of people still believe that, secular humanists want to repress religion, and liberals are plotting to confiscate people’s guns and push a “gay agenda.” At the opposite end of the political spectrum, there is the assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and all that this entails. No offense meant. I’ve been called a “conspiracy nut” myself, specifically for saying that we should know more about the attack on the Twin Towers. Still, a modern-day Reichstag fire at multiple locations does qualify as a radical conclusion.
I usually resist the urge to challenge the controversial theories of fellow travelers, at least in mixed company. One night, for example, during a discussion about Al-Qaeda after Osama, a speaker casually asserted that President Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen. No one said a word. I considered questioning the notion but let it pass.
Anything’s possible, right? Why be rude? But some theories and predictions are too important. They are widely accepted as indisputable and part of an overall world view, usually linked with an anti-establishment ideology. They have practical consequences for social action, can spark deep divisions, and influence how people see and treat others. In some groups, if you question the conclusions of a prevailing theory you’re either a dupe or a collaborator.
Deep skepticism is often at the root, a good thing in general. After all, so much of what we once believed has turned out to be a lie, or at least a very selective version of reality. But still, shouldn’t there be standards? Also, why do some theories get all the attention while others, perhaps more credible ones, get buried? And can’t we at least call people to account when their claims repeatedly lead down false trails?
In 2004, when friends claimed that George W. Bush would invade someplace – probably Cuba – before the election, I was skeptical but said nothing. Four year later, when colleagues embraced the idea that either a) there would be a pre-election invasion – possibly Syria this time, or b) federal troops would be used to install Bush as dictator and block Obama’s election – in short, Martial Law was imminent – I took bets.
In October 2010 word spread in activist circles that the rise in US Drone strikes and NATO helicopter attacks inside Pakistan were harbingers of something bigger. The war was going to be extended into Pakistan with the ultimate goal of seizing that nation’s nuclear weapons. Turns out they went after Osama, although many people believe that is also a lie and bin Laden was killed years earlier. These death conspiracies sound like the classic one about a fake moon landing – we never went there, right? – including phony video and a staged photo of the National Security brain trust looking at…what? Seal Team Six on a Top Secret movie set?
People also predicted that Billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg would run for president (as an independent) in 2012, peeling off enough votes and states to hang the electoral college and deliver the White House to Sarah Palin. We now know that the prediction about Bloomberg’s run (and Palin’s victory) was based on nothing, but people can always plausibly claim that the US is preparing to invade someplace. Unfortunately, some rumors begin to sound like crying wolf. On the other hand, who remembers years later?
It’s easy for an extreme, often paranoid theory to circulate these days. In January, 2011 for example, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a press release to pilots saying that the Department of Defense would be testing the GPS system off the southern Atlantic coast. Cyberspace soon erupted with rumors that the Defense Department was hiding something, perhaps maritime war games, scientific experiments in the Bermuda triangle, or a plot to make GPS more accurate for government to track people in cars.
What actually happened? GPS is an outgrowth of space exploration and became public in 1983. The Defense Department remains in charge of software upgrades and satellite maintenance, and the Air Force has experienced some signal losses. The tests were part of an upgrade and took 45 minutes, followed by a 15-minute blackout. That’s basically it. Yet for some it was evidence of a secret government plot.
Speaking of plots, depopulation has been getting some attention, specifically related to the use of covert technology to allegedly cause earthquakes and tsunamis. The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, known as HAARP, is a joint military program involved in classified experiments involving the ionosphere. The basic claim is that it has been involved for decades in developing various types of weather-based and environmental warfare capabilities. It doesn’t help that the military has a name for this kind of thing – weather modification.
Still, using HAARP to cause earthquakes, wipe out regions and thin the herd is something else. Supporters of the depopulation theory say Haiti was a transparent example, claiming as evidence that a US task force was ready to invade before the earthquake occurred. Before that came the Indian Ocean tsunami, where people weren’t warned as soon as possible. Afterward came Fukushima, a full-scale assault not only on Japan, but on the oceans and atmosphere.
“The established pattern, with disasters and invasions, is incremental escalation,” explains a friend who supports the theory. Nuclear reactors in the US are therefore sitting ducks, just waiting for a HAARP attack. “And they have made it clear that an 80% reduction in world population is their goal,” he writes. Who made it clear? The overseers of the New World Order. Oh, Them.
Late in 2010 came news that China had briefly hijacked the Internet. I was skeptical at first, maybe burned out by too many theories and rumors. But there was evidence that the People’s Republic had cyber attack capabilities. No less than The Christian Science Monitor had reported that a Chinese group was linked to attacks on several US oil companies. The companies themselves didn’t realize the severity of the problem at first. The hijack rumor came from a report to Congress that said 15 percent of global Internet traffic had been briefly routed through Chinese servers earlier in the year. This included encrypted government mail.
Dmitri Slperovitch, a threat analyst at McAfee, called it “one of the biggest” hijacks ever. Somehow, for a brief period, all that digital information was re-routed at a small Chinese ISP and passed on to China Telecom. For some reason, however, this story didn’t have legs, perhaps not resonating sufficiently with the current narrative of either the Right or the Left. Maybe it was too abstract a problem, or too scary to consider for long.
Early in 2011 a rumor began circulating that Wikileaks is a CIA plot. The idea was that the leaks actually supported the US imperial agenda around the world. In short, Wikileaks was a big US intelligence con job that would be used to crack down on the Internet and advance a long-standing anti- civil liberties agenda. Evidence used to support this idea included the shutting down of Wikileaks servers in the US and the 2009 introduction of S. 773, The Cybersecurity Act, which if passed would give the president the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
The problem here is that, while the Wikileaks-CIA plot looks like a distraction, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had begun to seize and shut down web domains without due process or trial. The initial focus was sites that supposedly violated copyrights but the risk was that cyber censorship might be extended to, let’s say, combat "alleged" cyber terrorism. It’s a slippery slope.
After several more websites were shut down, DHS held a hearing on the move to give the president more authority over the Internet during an emergency. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Joe Lieberman noted that China “can disconnect parts of the Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.” Similar discussions were underway in Europe. In this context, the Wiklieaks-CIA story was most likely an attempt at disinformation, one that didn’t go viral.
In early February, 2011 the FCC voted to require that TV and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers participate in a test involving the receiving and transmitting of a live code including an alert message by the president. It was part of an update of the Emergency Alert System and complements other warning systems, including FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert System and a Commercial Mobile Alert System. In the future people would be able to get alerts through smart phones, blackberries, and so on. Personally not a priority, but many people want to be informed in the event of real crises.
For some, however, the test was proof positive that the President would soon commandeer every phone any time he wanted, and for any reason the government deemed necessary. If they want to scare us about a bombing, went the logic, someone will call your cell phone or appear on your TV, no matter what you are watching. It boiled down to this: Do you believe that Obama (or the National Security State, if you prefer) is “taking over” the Internet?
Here’s some background: The Broadcast Message Center, created by Communications company Alcatel-Lucent, allows government agencies to send cell phone users information in the event of an emergency. Under the Mobile Alert System phones apparently receive emergency alerts. Meanwhile, the FCC was looking at how wireless broadband could enhance emergency announcements. Did that represent a government plan to break into computers and wireless devices at will? In the end, the answer depended mostly on your level of distrust.
Perhaps the strangest development at the time was Homeland Security’s “If you see something, say something” campaign. That was a new public-private partnership between DHS and hundreds of Walmart outlets around the country. Seriously. What’s worse, it sounded ominously like asking people to inform on each other. There you have it – a big government, big business surveillance merger, and worse yet, a giant threat, the Walmart-Intelligence Complex. I’m kidding, but not entirely.
In short, some theories may be distractions or even deliberate deceptions, but others are worth considering, as long as we stipulate that they aren’t necessarily facts and resist exaggeration. The problem is that it has become more difficult to tell the difference in an era when facts have been devalued. There are so many possibilities, the standard of proof appears to be dropping, and theories tend to evolve, expand and mutate rapidly in unexpected ways as they circulate through cyberspace. But there is little follow up to see whether new facts reinforce or discredit a particular idea or prediction. Corruption of truth meanwhile contributes to social division and civic decay. And there are apparently no consequences for stoking paranoia, intentionally confusing speculation with fact, or perpetrating a premeditated hoax.
So, how about some accountability for the false prophets, gross opportunists, and irresponsible rumor-mongers who threaten society with truth decay? Here’s a suggestion: Call them out publicly, post their names on some Wall of Shame, and then stop listening – it only encourages them.
This is excerpted from Maverick Media’s Rebel News Round Up,* broadcast live on The Howie Rose Show on May 27, 2011 on WOMM (105.9-FM/LP – The Radiator) in Burlington.
Also that week: Getting High with Jesus, Vermont’s Leahy and PMCs, Upstate New York Goes Blue, and the Rumor of the Week.
Plus, only on the air…
Sympathy for the Devil? Lars von Trier’s unfortunate words about Hitler and Jews at the Cannes Film Festival.
Integrity, Authenticity and Transparency: Exploring the evolutionary impulse
Rumor of the Week: Bin Laden wasn’t killed in Pakistan last month. He’s actually been dead for years.
*Edited previews don’t include spontaneous comments and last minute changes or additions.
How is it that in the previous post, you address the issue of psychopaths misruling the world and then, in this post, you question hoaxes? Surely you have noted that if you investigate the hypothesis of psychopathy and leadership that you will find more than a little "fringe" thinking. Does this finding negate your thesis?? Just because there are some "fringe" ideas, does that mean that these theories are hoaxes??
Copy of reply posted on Common Dreams: Thank you, Greg Guma, for your important and, no doubt, largely thankless contribution.
Even though generally not into 'conspiracy theories' I find myself tempted to imagine a conspiracy by 'them' to feed demonstrably koo-koo theories to the gullible to take energy away from legitimate concerns and organizing. The fact that there are significant DETAILS, such as just who placed the puts against those airline stocks right before 911, if anyone did at all, does not mean that the US government was behind the attack.
People who into any and all conspiracy theories tend to dismiss clear evidence or reason to the contrary summarily. If those 4 departed planes full of people did not carry out the attacks, where are they? If someone I know worked in the Pentagon and took pictures of aircraft debris, including an undercarriage, they dismiss it as phony. If OBL lives, why hasn't he sprung up? And HAARP - don't even go there!
And there I go again, wasting my time with this stuff, even though I vowed not to!
Post a Comment