Comment is Free - The Fallout

Bitethehand

So have you any other examples [of wide-ranging conspiracies] that might prove your case?

The psychological warfare operation to link al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the minds of the US and global public. That's one, I would have thought.

Greymatter

My point is that there is a magnitude of difference between plotting to manipulate public opinion or undermine a political leader, which can be done by stealth with comparative ease, and organising in total secrecy the huge logistical project of men and materials that would have been required for a 'false flag' 9/11. It is the sheer improbability of the latter that vindicates the viewpoint of Charlie Brooker and indeed all the rest of us who have preserved our collective sanity in relation to these events.

Like I said in my piece, I have no idea what to make of the attacks. To argue from "sheer improbability" is problematic from any number of angles. Highly improbable events are a banal fact of life. More seriously, there are alternative accounts one could give of 9/11 that don't rely on a large scale cover-up of the sort Brooker assumes would be necessary. To conflate all the alternative theories doesn't to my mind seem legitimate.

This, by the way doesn't mean that I am sceptical about possibility of holding true beliefs about the world, with a reasonable degree of certainty. Nor does it require to sign up to any of the theories concerning the nature of the attacks or the authors. I just don't think it is evidence of mental infirmity to express doubts about the official account, given the very limited state of our knowledge.

cebolla

The author also tries to equate Brooker with Melanie Philips...nice smear! Philips, whatever she may be, is not a rationalist.

Brooker's approach is relevantly similar to Phillips's. It is kind of funny, no?

Charlessurface:

Also - don't you see the problem with pointing out instances of goverenment involvement in assassinations? We *know* about them.

I am not making a direct comparison with 9/11 conspiracy. I was referring to the Arbenz and Allende coups precicesly because everyone now knows that the CIA were involved.

The fact that we know about previous conspiracies doesn't tell us very much about 9/11. It is possible we don't know about all historical conspiracies - so we don't know what kinds of things can be kept secret with any degree of certainty.

watfubar

This article is a mess. The reason Charlie Brooker didn't talk about that in his piece was because he WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THAT. Geddit? His article was about the nutbag theories not the geopolitics of the situation. This doggytyrd article is to let YOU preen and try on the Chomsky big brains badge - well I've got news for you Dan. It doesn't suit you, aside from the fact you'd stick the pin through your own thumb putting it on your ego has blinded you to the bleedin' point.


Hi mum.

The Saddam Hussein -al Qaeda link is a nutbar theory. It has been far more influential - and fatal - than any single variant of the other conspiracy theories. The fact that it doesn't feature in attempts to account for the public appetite for conspiracy theories strikes me as being noteworthy.

Manoa

Brooker did not say there are never any true conspiracies or that conspiracy theories are per se lunacy. There is no logical reason to believe that because there are true conspiracies, 9/11 must have been the result of one. Yet, that is the ultimate point of Hind's column.


That isn't the ultimate point of the column, at all. I am saying that scepticism about 9/11 is understandable and legitimate given the current state of our knowledge. I explicitly don't rule out the official explanation, I just don't think that doubting it is evidence of mental infirmity.

Dangbh

No kidding! Hind's column is constructed from a fallacy wish list:

Poisoning the well, followed by tu quoque, followed by a straw man, followed by something I can't quite put my finger on, followed by a false dichotomy, followed by mistaking some for all, and climaxing with a whopping three-paragraph non sequitur. And a final paragraph where a straw man sort of dances around the poisoned well.


I like the idea of a straw man dancing around a poisoned well.

How about if I try to put the argument in a more rigorous way:

1.) Most attempts to account for the public appetite for conspiracy theories seek to explain them in psychological terms. People for some reason find them reassuring.

2.) But in general the public are right to entertain conspiracy theories, since conspiracies are a fact of political life.

3.) In the specific case of 9/11 attempts to dismiss those who question the official story on the grounds that they are somehow seeking to compensate for deficiencies in their own lives is mistaken. The state of our knowledge does not permit us to adopt such a position. As well as being mistaken it also quite offensive, hence the knockabout in the original piece.

Armaros

It is tempting to seem sophisticated and say that " I do not believe the government" but should that automatically lead one to believe those who hustle conspiracy theories?

No, it really shouldn't.


Pickledpelican

Dan Hind actually makes a point which is one of the strongest cases against believing in any 9/11 conspiracy:

The most important conspiracy theory about 9/11 rarely gets mentioned by writers like Brooker and Phillips. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the White House made every effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida. Far from being a production of what commentators like to call the tinfoil hat brigade, this particular paranoid fantasy emerged from the work of a highly focused and skilled group of people.

Exactly. Any sane enquiring person knows that a cabal around Bush deliberately tried to tie Saddam, 9/11 and Al-Qaida together. How do we know this? Because the evidence is abundant and public. The sheer breathtaking scale of the lies put together by Cheney and his gang were glaring. And of course dear Blair went along with it and the rest is dead bodies and history.

Not sure what this establishes. Is it a variant of the argument that because we know about some historical conspiracies, the ones we don't know about don't exist? Plenty of sane, inquiring people thought there was something in the Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda connection when it was politically important for them to do so.

Is Charlie Brooker Melanie Phillips?

Earlier this week Charlie Brooker set out to generate the largest number of online responses to an article in the history of Comment is Free. Cannily, he chose as his theme conspiracy theory in general and the 9/11 conspiracy theories in particular – some 1500 comments have been posted so far. Brooker thinks that conspiracy theories console those who find reality too dull and complicated without the garnish of a hidden agenda - ‘embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you’re part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgeon and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time’.

Brooker’s line belongs to a mini-genre of attempts to explain the public’s willingness to entertain conspiracy theories in psychological terms. Indeed he is very close to that stern rationalist Melanie Phillips, who has decided that, in the absence of religion, conspiracy theories satisfy ‘our desperate need to make order out of chaos’.


The conspiratorial world-view does have its consolations. But so does Brooker’s. There’s a certain pleasure and drama in declaring that the world is driven by incompetence, inadvertence and error, and that things are more or less as they seem. You can preen yourself on how well adjusted you are, how you haven't fallen for that stuff about lizards, or Illuminati. You have learnt to live without magic. You’re saying ‘I don’t believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories’, but you are signalling that you are sceptical and rational and that you don't have personal hygiene issues. There’s a psychological pay-off for the cock-up and the conspiracy theory of history.

Our willingness to entertain conspiracy theories is doubtless influenced by our life experiences. A man in his 20s with time on his hands is more likely to be drawn to the wilderness of mirrors that surrounds the death of John Kennedy than a successful columnist in his thirties. But this is beside the point. Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether we are inclined to believe they do or not. It might well be consoling to believe that the CIA plots the overthrow of unhelpful foreign regimes. But it is also true. To insist that, say, the CIA had nothing to do with the fall of Arbenz or Allende might feel terrifically sensible and sane – we can't always be seeing the hidden hand of the CIA, there’s no call for reductionism. It is also, you know, wrong.

What happened on 9/11 is, in the end, a matter of fact – whatever our world-view might incline us to consider plausible or possible. The true authorship of the attacks is as difficult to establish as anything else about the world of international terrorism and espionage. For myself, I have no idea what happened, because I have no more idea of how the business-intelligence-political nexus works than I have about what chess grandmasters are up to when they are staring at the board, looking all thoughtful. That whole thing, the thing of which 9/11 is part, is something to do with oil, and drugs, and money, and organized crime, and imperialism, and actually existing institutions and us. And religion, and a lot more money.

It might feel wise and sensible to declare that any explanation that differs from the official account requires hundreds of impossibly tight-lipped bureaucratic killers. But that presupposes that we know how the world works, and we don’t. Maybe the 9/11 attacks were all about a small team of terrorists who managed to hold it together in a world otherwise characterized by crossed wires and blundering incompetence. But I don’t know, and nor does Charlie Brooker.

The most important conspiracy theory about 9/11 rarely gets mentioned by writers like Brooker and Phillips. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the White House made every effort to link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Far from being a production of what commentators like to call the tinfoil hat brigade, this particular paranoid fantasy emerged from the work of a highly focused and skilled group of people. They worked in secret to manipulate the American and the global public and we can trace the impact of the efforts over time. So here is a (really existing) conspiracy to promote a (false) conspiracy theory. The White House's psy-war operatives were doubtless a professional and measured lot. I am sure that they knew how to behave in socially appropriate ways and enjoyed their work. They also helped pave the way for an illegal war in which more than half a million people have died. There’s a 9/11 conspiracy theory hard at work, right there. It doesn’t matter what sort of person you are, whether you are coolly rational or groping around for meaning in an indifferent world, America’s spooks conspired to stampede the public into war on a false prospectus.

Some of the same people are now working hard to convince us that Iran poses an unacceptable threat to the peace-loving nations of the world. If they can they will use conspiracy theories of various kinds to do it, all the while acting conspiratorially. So it is hardly surprising that people, intelligent, level-headed people, are willing to believe that sophisticated conspiracies exist and that they are sometimes extremely important drivers of events. Given that they demonstrably do exist. And while elements in the American state angle for another war in the Middle East, Melanie Phillips and Charlie Brooker will doubtless continue to heap scorn on an irrational public. Which seems a little, well, paranoid, under the circumstances.

A slightly different version of this can be found at the Guardian's Comment is Free site.

Brooker Slams Conspiracy Types

Charlie Brooker has set out to generate the largest number of reader responses in Comment is Free's history with a piece condemning 9/11 conspiracy theorists (501 comments at the time of writing, no, 508. Oh no, it's now 770). The piece reproduces the standard line on the conspiratorial turn of mind. People believe conspiracy theories because they offer consolation of a sort; "I've seen through the deception that other people accept. What looks overwhelmingly complicated is, properly understood, comprehensible; there is a system, albeit a malevolent one. My life might seem dull, but really I am an actor in a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil". In this Brooker echoes Frank Furedi, who likes to suggest that the popularity of conspiracy theories is part of a quasi-religious retreat from reason. I think Melanie Phillips's position is similar. Cor, Charlie Brooker and Melanie Phillips.

The conspiratorial world-view does have its consolations. But there are also pleasures to be had from embracing the idea that it's all a matter of messy flux. You can preen yourself on how well adjusted you are, how you haven't fallen for that stuff about lizards, or Illuminati; "I am sceptical, I am rational. I don't have personal hygiene issues".

There is a psychological payoff either way.

We are still left with the question of whether particular conspiracies took place. It might well be consoling in some way to know that the CIA plots the overthrow of unhelpful foreign regimes. But it is also true. To insist that, say, the CIA had nothing to do with the fall of Arbenz or Allende might feel terrifically sensible and sane - can't always be seeing the hidden hand of the CIA, no call for reductionism ... It is also, you know, wrong.

What happened on 9/11 is, in the end a factual matter – it’s up to you to decide whether or not the evidence stacks up for the official version, and how it does so exactly.

Personally, I have fuck all idea what happened, because I have no more idea of how the business-intelligence-political nexus works than I have about what chess grandmasters are up to when they are staring at the board, looking all thoughtful. The whole thing, the thing of which 9/11 is part, is something to do with oil, and drugs, and organised crime, and imperialism, and actually existing institutions and us. Oh, and a bit of religion, and a lot of money.

But how it all fits together, or doesn't, that is some way over my head. Maybe no one knows, maybe no one can. Maybe it is all, in the end, inadvertence and error. But it is possible - highly likely - that some people know a sight more than I do, than Charlie Brooker does.

(It's worth noting as an aside that the most pernicious conspiracy theory about the 9/11 attacks was promoted by the American state. In the run-up to the Iraq war every effort was made to link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Those who want to debunk conspiracy theories have an awkward time with this one - that particular paranoid fantasy wasn't pushed by the tinfoil hat brigade, but by a highly focussed and skilled group of people working in secret to manage the perceptions of the American and global public ... A conspiracy to promote a (false) conspiracy theory. That's much less entertaining than the 9/11 Truth Movement. The White House's psywar team were successful and apparently well adjusted. And they helped prepare the way for an illegal war in which more than half a million people have died. Did someone say something about holograms?)

Britain's Small Housing Problem

Angela Knight, head of the British Bankers' Association, has tried to draw a distinction between the current problems in the UK housing market and the situation in the United States. She is quoted in the Observer saying:

'In America, they have lent money to people with no proof of income to buy five-bedroom houses. That has not happened in Britain.'

Well, I suppose that's broadly true, five-bedroom houses being thinner on the ground in this country than in the continental United States. In the US the average house is around 2200 square feet, in the UK it is around 800 square feet. That is, the average American family rattles around in a property almost three times larger than that occupied by their British cousins.

In Britain it would hardly be surprising if the money lent to people with no proof of income was used to buy flats and small houses. So Angela Knight seems to be saying no more than:

'Everything is fine. In America houses are much bigger than they are here. So can everyone stop worrying?'

Obesity, Responsibility, Plausibility

David Cameron has just weighed (pppffffttt) into the Great British Obesity Debate with a call for fat people to face up their, alright our, responsibilities. It's our fault that we are fat and it's up to us to do something about it. No use pulling a tarpaulin over the elephant in the room: we're fat because we're greedy and lazy and it is time to take ownership of our problems. Political correctness has gone too far. We need to start judging people a litle more.

But what to do? How should we take responsibility for ourselves and our families? For the Nation? Well, perhaps the smoking ban gives us a clue. Since July of last year 400,000 smokers have quit, according to the world-famous Chard and Ilminster News. Which seems like a lot, but anyway - let's say that's true. Changes to the environment can have a major impact on behaviour. If people don't want to be fat and unhealthy, they (we) will probably welcome reforms that hold out the prospect of their losing some weight.

So let's not whine about processed food and the corporations that promote it, or go on about the obesogenic horrors of modern life, like a bunch of tofu-munching, Hampstead-haunting, Guardianista , more-organic-than-thou, er, bi-coastal, food Nazis. Let's get to it and put into place a series of public interventions that will reduce obesity; we could ban advertising to children, we could remove junk food from schools and public institutions. We could, if we were really serious, ban the promotion of foods with a high sugar and fat content, or require processed food advertisers to pay for equal air time for advice on healthy eating.

Surely David Cameron, hungry for votes as he is (I am killing me here), can see that steps to improve public health like this are sure-fire vote winners. And unlike empty and vicious calls for the healthy and wealthy and wise to despise the poor and the disadvantaged (from a former booze peddler, no less), action of this kind stands a chance of working.

So what if a few extremely powerful vested interests will suffer! They are filth-peddlers and it's political correctness gone mad not to judge them for it.