Translation from:
https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/die-decke-unter-der-die-da-oben-alle-stecken-ist-schwarz-rot-gold-und-hei%C3%9Ft-deutschland/
Table of contents :
0. Why another text about conspiracy theories?
1. What are conspiracy theories? Are they even theories?
2. Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?
3. What is attractive about conspiracy theories?
4. How do conspiracy theories connect to normal citizen thinking?
5. How do real scandals seemingly confirm conspiracy theories?
6. But ideas about “reptile people” and rejuvenation serum made from children’s blood must seem absurd to normal people?
7. How are esotericism and conspiracy theories related?
8. Why are conspiracy theories ideologies and not just errors in reasoning?
9. Are conspiracy theories always hermetic?
10. Which discontents are a basis for conspiracy theories?
11. Aren't the elites all in cahoots?
12. But what about international meetings of “the elites”, for example at the World Economic Forum or the “Bilderberg meeting”?
13. But aren't there conspiracies, like the “deep state” and secret societies?
14. Is the distrust of bourgeois science not justified?
15. Isn't the media one-sided and lying?
16. Are there national peculiarities when it comes to conspiracy theories?
17. What is the relationship between anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories?
18. Are conspiracy theories "structurally anti-Semitic"?
19. What role does “freedom” really play in the Corona protests?
20. Are all Corona protesters right-wing?
21. Where does the sudden distrust of the state come from?
22. What should leftists do and not do?
0. Why another text about conspiracy theories?
It's not simply that there are not enough criticisms of conspiracy theories, but that there are not enough correct ones. In other words: the issue is not quantitative, but qualitative. The common criticisms on hears: People who adhere to these conspiratorial models of explaining the world are “too stupid”, they believe in “simple explanations”, or they are people with psychological problems. So why add another to these criticisms? We think that the common criticisms of conspiracy theories trivialize them because they explain them incorrectly.
Conspiracy theories may seem simple at first because they are based on a certain principle: What happens, happens because someone planned it. Nobody knows about this plan because it is secret. It is secret because it is intended to do something bad. But in terms of content, these theories are sometimes highly complex because they have to reconcile a lot of contradictory observations with their worldview. And conspiracy theorists have their own thoughts about people, nation, “foreigners”, justice, freedom, etc.
That’s why we claim: There’s nothing “simple” about conspiracy theories. In a society in which there is a constant fight for success, the idea of an “inherently” good society that is being poisoned by “globalists”, “lizards” or the like - is many things. Just not simple or easy.
In this text we aim, on the one hand, to uncover the need and reasons for the multitude of conspiracy theories. It will become clear that conspiracy theories have something to do with normal thinking; and it will become clear how conspiracy theories have something to do with normal thinking.
1. What are conspiracy theories? Are they even theories?
Wikipedia defines it like this: “In the broadest sense, a conspiracy theory is the attempt to explain a situation, an event or a development through a conspiracy, i.e. through the targeted, conspiratorial work of a usually small group of actors for an often illegal or illegitimate purpose .” 1 This is initially correct, but it would also apply to conspiracy hypotheses. Conspiracy hypotheses are comprehensible assumptions based on evidence that there was a conspiracy, i.e. secret illegal agreements, illegal actions by security authorities, political intrigues, etc., such as in the Watergate affair, when the Federal Intelligence Service spied on the SPD in the 1950s and 1960s, the coup plans of the P2 lodge in Italy, etc.
It is often claimed that such absurd constructs as conspiracy theories should not be given the honorary title “theory” but that it would be better to speak of conspiracy beliefs or conspiracy ideologies. Of course, people believe in conspiracy theories and ideologies do too. However, we still call them theories for the following reasons: At least in everyday language, many claims and ideas are unchallenged by the title of theory. But they are just as absurd as conspiracy theories -- for example, the trickle-down theory of economics, according to which the poor become wealthier as the rich become richer, is in any case no less absurd and just as empirically refuted as the theory that the earth is flat.
2. Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?
The banal answer is because they want to believe in it. This is, of course, unsatisfactory. Where does the will to believe come from? There can be no answer to this that really applies to all cases. The search for an answer to that question is often accompanied by great astonishment: how do people come up with something like that? The assumption is that there must be some things at play that lead to such absurd thinking. The astonished search for causes for conspiracy theory thinking is itself quite astonishing: Does this thinking really have nothing to do with the rest of the ideas in this society? Are there no similarities to normal, everyday common sense? We do think that there are a number of similarities and starting points. (see question 4). That's why we find it odd when people deal with conspiracy theories without wanting to deal with their content, but primarily look for external factors (e.g. level of education) that are supposed to produce this "completely crazy" thinking.
But do human thoughts and feelings really have “causes” that determine them (and thus make them clearly predictable)? Very doubtful, not to say wrong! Neither economic crises, pandemics, social situations, fears of declining social status, nor anything else are “explanations” for conspiracy theories in the sense that anyone would be forced to draw the conclusion that there is a big conspiracy. (But that would be the case if it were a cause!) If people do this en masse, it's obviously more than just individual deviation in thought. But that doesn't mean they have to think that way as a necessity. But rather, they probably want to do it that way. It is also obvious that this has nothing to do with a mere lack of education or half-education (otherwise there would probably be no educated conspiracy believers). If you want to understand why people find conspiracy theories plausible and want to believe them, you have to show what is attractive about these theories, where they tie in with common ways of thinking and where they also accommodate certain interests and dissatisfactions. So let's ask the question a little differently:
3. What is attractive about conspiracy theories?
First, with the assumption of a secret original plan, all sorts of things can be explained very nicely. Much of what happens follows one principle: namely, bad intentions. In order for the plan to remain secret, its existence must be concealed. So anything that cannot be explained in this way can, for example, be interpreted as a deception to conceal the existence of the plan. From this point on, the theory is hermetic, meaning that even the things that should refute it seem to confirm it.
Second, this fits very well with the way of thinking that many people have become accustomed to - namely, always and first asking who is pursuing what interest. In the world of competition, pursuing your own interests is a must. When discussing politics in the public debate, for example, this is also a long-running issue: the interests behind issues, developments and decisions are regularly named and are usually measured against the “common good” and moral values (and are often criticized for not corresponding to both). The idea of a secret conspiracy in the interests of the rich and powerful for some harmful interests is just the application of the principle: “Cui bono?” – whoever benefits is also responsible for it.
Third, this idea somehow justifies any discomfort with the conditions in this world without the principles of society or the recognized values having to be questioned, and without people even being able to see themselves as defenders of these principles and values. It is, so to speak, a criticism without any criticism of the prevailing values. However, it can make people feel very oppositional to society. And that, even though people actually only confirm their ideal: namely, to be a really great community in which things don't go as well as they should because of bad apples with bad interests and low morals. It is assumed that the market economy, the rule of law and the national community cannot be to blame for the complained about conditions, but that only violations and abuses of the rules/laws can be responsible for this (how exactly this works: see question 10).
So instead of making sensible criticism of the system and society, individual culprits are sought and found. In this way, people can then denounce all sorts of “grievances” in the name of the prevailing values, even the prevailing order. Just because conspiracy theorists see themselves as the actual representatives of the prevailing order and values does not mean that they receive social recognition for this. On the contrary: adhering to a conspiracy theory often leads to social exclusion. Individual culprits are sought and found.
Fourth, many people are reluctant to change a hard-earned opinion because doing so is often seen as a blow to their own self-image or sense of self. Then a worldview is attractive that you don't have to change because every contradictory fact can be integrated into it with enough mental contortions. This is all the more true if the theory is not only intended to explain one aspect of the world, but rather provides an explanation of theory of everything, i.e. a universal key, so to speak. Because then questioning this explanation means shaking a person's entire worldview. In addition, conspiracy theories, when they are socially outlawed, lead to people only having contact with like-minded people. People lose this bubble when they turn away from the conspiracy theory.
Fifth, such a theory at least gives the believer a good feeling of having seen through the matter. One feels good about at least mentally rising above conditions that people criticize for one reason or another, without having to really question these conditions. That sets you apart from all the ignorant sleeping sheep who continue to believe the “lies” of those in power and the media.
Sixth, claiming that things are not right is also a good excuse for people who, in their opinion, have not done well enough in the competition. Their “failure” – always measured by the usual standards of success – is not because there are necessarily losers in the competition. But either because of the evil machinations of people who have distorted and corrupted the competition, or because of the brutal exclusion of sharp-sighted people like themselves, by sinister interest groups and/or “wolves in sheep's clothing”.
Seventh, the feeling of being a victim of dark machinations allows one to use radical means: self-victimization as self-empowerment to transgress boundaries. And so, in the name of purely recognized values, to no longer accept the valid rules and really act out one's own anger and frustration: from not wearing a mask to preparing a coup. A rebel with a just cause...
Well, all of this is pretty attractive – if people find something like that attractive.
However, some of these points can also be found in other ideologies, so they are not unique features of conspiracy theories. The fact that conspiracy theories are similar in so many ways to other common ideologies of normal bourgeois thought (explanations of grievances and damage by looking for blame, e.g. corruption, “foreigners are taking our jobs”, etc.) makes the transition to them easy.
4. How do conspiracy theories connect to normal bourgeois thinking?
Conspiracy theorists want to recognize a pattern in a world in which it is often said that everything is connected to everything else. This imagined “all-round, general connection” boils down to the fact that there are no coincidences, but that the world is “actually” an ordered whole in which nothing happens without a reason. In this worldview, disorders and problems are neither a coincidence, nor do they have their roots in the social structure or political rule. Rather, they can be traced back to evil actors who want to disguise their interests as a “coincidence” so that no one can find out about them. That's why the few people who don't allow them wool to be pulled over their eyes or who recognized the "true connections" by chance would then be slandered as conspiracy theorists.
This then regularly leads to seeing things that appear or really occur at the same time as necessarily having a relationship to one another (e.g. one as the cause of the other, or both as an expression of a third party), regardless of whether that is true. So: Because the expansion of 5G networks is taking place at the time of the corona pandemic, there must (!) be a connection.
This fallacy often occurs: But correlation (simultaneous occurrence) is not causation (cause-effect): There could be a common cause and there could also be no connection at all. 2 In addition to this error in thinking, which, by the way, even bourgeois scientists are not immune to, there are other points of reference in everyday thinking:
• Analogous conclusions (because the H1N1 swine flu in 2009/10 was not as bad as predicted, Covid19-SARS2 will not be either)
• Distrust of science (“it's all just grey theory”; the fact that the experts don't agree and even change their statements is not seen as progress in knowledge, but rather shows that they don't know any better)
• Resentment against elites (“they’re all in cahoots up there”)
• Insisting on “common sense” (“They’re not fooling me, I know what the world looks like!”, “my life experience tells me”, "I come from the school of hard knocks")
• Personalization of the impersonal: Behind the “constraints” are people who enforce them (which is true) and only pursue their secret interest (which is not true). Many people don't want to believe that capitalism and the nation state, for example, create really bad "constraints" that everyone has to follow if they have an interest to be successful. They prefer to practice:
• a zealous moral search: Those who don't want to know anything about the causes are just looking for culprits who can then be hated. It's nicer to know who is "good" and "bad", who is behind something, than to assume, for example, a virus without intentions that penetrates cells and multiplies as the cause.
5. How do real scandals seemingly confirm conspiracy theories?
Empirical examples can be found that initially justify the distrust of official bodies:
• There have been several drug scandals and examples where it only became clear after widespread use that the side effects of a drug were more serious than initially assumed according to the studies.
• Western medical aid organizations have also pursued population policy in the Global South or against various racial groups (e.g. Tuskegee experiments).
• The separation of business interests and parallel non-profit organizations is not always as clear-cut as companies like to claim.
• Politicians draw up laws that have far-reaching effects, but are not presented prominently to the public (“backroom politics”).
• Companies want to influence government activities through lobbying and, conversely, there are bribery scandals.
• Secret services operate - as the name suggests - in secret and develop a life of their own.
• The state and its services have systematically expanded surveillance capabilities and continue to do so. There are a lot of attempts to influence behavior without people noticing.
All of these aspects are starting points where people (not just conspiracy theorists) jump in and say that not everything that is said is wrong. It's not the examples of facts (always), but rather the interpretation.
Revealing a violation of rules or concealing information, or both, often causes a scandal. If people are bothered by the scandal, they can interpret it in two ways: 1. As evidence of how well the “system” - whatever that means - and its (self-)control mechanisms are working. 3 In this way -- despite all the outrage over the violation of the rules -- the injured sense of justice is restored by condemning people in reality or only retrospectively and morally. That's what most people do and, smugly shaking their heads, go on with their daily routine. As a rule, nothing is changed about the reasons for the rule violation; at most, better countermeasures are suggested.
Or 2.: The scandal that has been uncovered only proves what has been covered up and concealed so far. An uncovered scandal proves that there is probably much more going on than meets the public eye. An extension of this is to insist that this exposure was just an unavoidable concession to cover up the other much bigger and worse messes. The usual salami slicing tactics of the respective perpetrators, of course, confirm this prejudice: if possible, only as much is admitted as is already publicly known in order to avert or complicate further investigations.
This is then the transition to “lateral thinking”. Here, too, the reasons for the rules and the violation of the rules are not looked for, but rather one starts the search for blame. Then the wickedness of the persons concerned is determined, who are therefore to be trusted with all sorts of things. Promoting economic growth and maximizing profits, for example, would explain very well why regulators stood idly by for two months as people in half of Europe were poisoned with salmonella-contaminated eggs. Rather, the prejudice is that if something goes wrong, malicious figures must have violated the accepted rules, a conspiracy is sought. And then it is found.
6. But shouldn't ideas about “reptile people” and rejuvenation serum made from children’s blood seem absurd to normal people?
Obscure theories were and are widespread, as are mystical ideas (“there is more between heaven and earth than our school wisdom allows us to dream”). Chain letters are still spreading; In 2010, a considerable number of people were afraid of the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar. Irrational theories about life, the planet, humanity, etc. are by no means marginal as “esotericism”, “Waldorf pedagogy”, “Gaia hypothesis”, etc. Obviously, certain irrational ideas are socially recognized and some are not. But that has nothing to do with their absurdity.
It can hardly be claimed that politics and the quality press have nothing to do with such irrationalism. As is well known, the state cultivates an entire section of society under the heading of religion, which does nothing other than claim that secret supernatural powers are at work. Some of them, which the state particularly recognizes, are even allowed to have their dogmas treated as normal teaching material in many federal states. Horoscopes are regularly printed in reputable newspapers that like to make fun of aluminum hats. These claim connections between star constellations and private success that have not yet been scientifically proven. In Waldorf schools, the state allows some of the young people to be educated on the basis of a scientifically unfounded theory (“anthroposophy”)-- Even if no one can say where Mr. Steiner got his “knowledge” about the seven-year steps in the development of the “etheric body”. And some health insurance companies have now included so-called “natural remedies” in their catalog, which are often based on esoteric theories and whose effectiveness does not exceed that of a placebo.
What seems so “normal” to “normal” people…
7. How are esotericism and conspiracy theories related?
All forms of esotericism, as well as most religions, have several things in common with conspiracy theories, which is why it is no wonder that people from the esoteric scene and religious fundamentalists often subscribe to conspiracy theories. Esotericists are convinced that there are invisible, supernatural powers that are difficult or impossible to prove rationally, and about which there is knowledge that is not generally accessible to the uninitiated. In many religions there are also evil forces (devils, demons, etc.) who try to deceive people and thereby harm them. And so that they can do this better, they also try to disguise their own existence. Religious and esoteric people are also willing to believe, and usually reject demands for evidence or logical plausibility.
None of these are compelling reasons to believe in conspiracy theories as an esoteric or religious person, or to become religious or esoteric as a conspiracy theorist. But the path is not very far.
8. Why are conspiracy theories ideologies and not just errors in reasoning?
Conspiracy theories as an attempt to make sense of the world of competition and domination are “stubborn” in the sense that, dissatisfied with the prevailing offers of interpretation and meaning, they go their own way. From a purely formal point of view, it is an unreflective hypothesis formation that doesn't pay much attention to the empirical verification of one's own statements. As with all ideologies, this is not just about errors in thinking, but about the will to believe. Where it comes from is what is actually interesting (see question 3).
But that's what makes it different from mere error: ideologies are interest-driven misinterpretations that people WANT to hold on to. Conspiracy theorists aren't, therefore, relieved that there is no global conspiracy that is after them, and that no lizard people want to microchip them. Instead, they defend their “findings” with all possible means: denying facts, ignoring contradictions, changing the topic (e.g. on the weak points of official statements), etc. Because they want to believe in their ideology, they are difficult to reach for arguments against it.
9. Are conspiracy theories always hermetic?
At the very least, they have great potential for this. If I am convinced that there is a large conspiracy by powerful groups, it makes perfect sense that this conspiracy would try to cover up its existence. That's why a thin layer of "evidence" is sufficient: the conspirators made an exceptional mistake at one point and weren't able to eliminate it quickly enough. Through this little negligence, the conspiracy's astute critics were able to see how the rabbit was hopping. Against all arguments it can also be said that they were produced by the conspiracy in order to disguise its own existence. Facts that don't fit with the conspiracy theory or even call it into question must have been deliberately produced to confuse. And so everything that can be said against the conspiracy theory becomes an "indication" or even "proof" that the conspiracy exists.
10. What dissatisfaction is a basis for conspiracy theories?
Almost all citizens are dissatisfied with the services of “their” state and have a lot to complain about. This is no coincidence, because the state requires and prohibits many things, enforces certain conditions, and thereby enforces, allows and prohibits certain ways of pursuing one's own interests. For many, this isn't a particularly good deal.
In order to cope mentally with this, many people adopt an interest-driven misinterpretation of the circumstances into which they want to fit in:
• Where the state grants rights (i.e. it can also recall them), most citizens want to see rights that they have as a matter of course, completely independent of the state: human rights.
• Where the state itself controls its own actions through laws (rule of law), many citizens believe they can discover self-evident rights and obligations that the state must not violate, transgress, or change.
• Where the state passes laws that serve its interests, many citizens consider this to be a service to their interests.
• Where the state demands taxes, citizens demand the right to government policies that serve them in return.
What causes a person's dissatisfaction and where it becomes more fundamental is influenced by all sorts of things. From the class situation, the circumstances of why people personally fail in a career path, but also from coincidences in the sense of:
• What do you actually notice?
• Where is the interest particularly focused?
• Where have your own expectations and demands not been met?
In the course of life, citizens accumulate many impressions: that in the country rights and duties are not "fairly" distributed, that apparent or real promises are not kept, that ideals are violated, and that their own expectations are not met. Citizens process this in different ways, for example "still better than elsewhere", "at least we can open our mouths", "it's just my opinion! Just leave me alone with this", "the main thing is to stay healthy / decent", "I don't take any handouts from anyone" (by whomever it may be), "who knows what it's good for".
Or: People are only obliged to obey a state that serves its people; if a state that does not do this, people not only don't owe obedience, but even have a duty to fight it, and in the most severe cases, a right to overthrow tyranny. The goal must be to restore the symbiosis between the people and the state. Which of course raises the question of who is supposed to have disrupted or even destroyed this symbiosis. And such attitudes are a good basis for conspiracy theories.
The nation state and capitalism are let off the hook with such an “explanation”; after all, it’s not their fault, but someone else’s fault. Because this is definitely not what such critics want to get into their heads:
• That it is precisely the enforcement of the “common good” and “national interests” that makes their lives so difficult,
• that the forced context of “the people” is anything but a cozy community in which everyone could do well if everyone followed the rules, but rather a bunch of competitors,
• that the state serves its people precisely by making them the material of power and profit in order to look good in the international competition for power and wealth,
• and that all of this can only be changed if the political and social foundations for it are changed very fundamentally.
Anyone who doesn't want that because they actually agree with the principles of the economy and the state has a lot to do to "explain" that the world is dissatisfied without really criticizing it sensibly. One way to do this is to create conspiracies or a “deep state”.
11. Aren't the elites all in cahoots?
The phrase “the elites” is so beautifully vague that anyone can imagine anything by it. When it comes to people from politics, business, science and the media, the following can be said: the blanket they are under is the colors of the flag of the state that rules over them. In other words, the frequent agreement that exists between most politicians, many entrepreneurs, leading scientists and many people who make their money in the media is not part of a deliberate collusion. Rather, it arises from their fundamentally positive and constructive attitude towards this society and its state. The attitude of the politicians follows from their will to keep society running and to enforce the interests of the state (or to prove that they could do this better than the existing government).
The people who are called “the economy” because they know that increasing wealth works best in a functioning society with an assertive state. And the media and science, because they are full of people who - just like most “normal people” - think the existing society is the best of all possible worlds. The fact that they are all competing with each other to see how the nation can progress in the best and most sensible way, and that they are also competing with each other, explains the disputes and controversies. And the media and science, because they are full of people who - just like most “normal people” - think the existing society is the best possible. The fact that they are all competing with each other to see how Germany can progress best and most sensibly, and that they are also competing with each other, explains the disputes and controversies. And the media and science, because they are full of people who - just like most “normal people” - think the existing society is the best possible. The fact that they are all competing with each other to see how Germany can progress best and most sensibly, and that they are also competing with each other, explains the disputes and controversies.
12. But what about international meetings of “the elites”, for example at the World Economic Forum or the “bilderberg conference”?
There are meetings like that and many similar ones. At the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bilderberg Conference, high-ranking politicians and successful entrepreneurs in particular meet to debate topics in world politics. There are quite different groups of participants: While representatives of the “West” mainly take part at the Bilderberg Conference, China and Russia are often also represented at the World Economic Forum (unless there is a war).
These meetings serve to coordinate politics, network, and prepare compromises - but also compete and resolve conflicts, explore and maintain positions, and clarify power relationships. There are different formats with different levels of importance and imagination of the participants.
Conspiracy theorists claim that “the elites” formed a secret world government and would determine the fate of the world. Now these elites are by no means a homogeneous bloc with uniform interests, but rather politicians from different countries and CEOs from different companies. They are in competition with each other. There is unity between them, for example, insofar as common imperialist interests are pursued (for example, the joint attempt by Western states to contain the influence of China). But how fragile this unity is was shown not least by the conflicts of “the West” in the Trump era. But not only for the Western political elites, but also for the economic elites, there is only limited agreement: they agree that, for example, Chinese competition should be kept away from them as much as possible or corporate taxes should be reduced. In many other questions, however, there are tangible conflicts of interests among entrepreneurs (e.g. which sectors/companies should be supported). “The economy” is not a unified actor, but is made up of competing companies that make their profits against each other.
In addition, one should not have any illusions. Government leaders can achieve a policy that is at the expense of wage earners and natural living conditions without (secret) international “elite meetings”. The anti-life policy stems from the state's program of using a capitalist economy to increase wealth. Man and nature are the means for the state and capital to achieve this.
13. But there are conspiracies, the “deep state” and secret societies?
Of course, conspiracies not only exist in the imagination of conspiracy theorists, but also in reality (see question 5 for examples). And in most countries, the “security authorities” lead a life of their own with relatively little control. Especially in states that mistrust their people, there are always agreements between certain elites to prevent certain political decisions or decisions from being made or even discussed, and cover-ups to eliminate opposition members. Such secret power structures are often referred to as the “deep state”.
In addition: Intrigues are part of bourgeois politics, e.g. leaking information, agreements on filling positions, etc. And for a long time bourgeois culture included more or less secret men's associations, such as the Freemasons or the Rosicrucians, with a mixture of esoteric nonsense and pompousness. There were and are also closed societies that one cannot easily join.
But determining this is completely different than attributing all possible events to a secret conspiracy, or the current development of the world to a secret plan. It can be explained much better through a sensible analysis of capitalism and nation-state competition.
It is also striking that right-wing extremists who are convinced of the existence of conspiracies see themselves as entitled to organize “counter-conspiracies”. Often the existence of real or imagined conspiracies only seems to provide legitimacy for founding a secret society (e.g. Nordkreuz).
14. Are doubts about bourgeois science not justified?
Of course! On the one hand, doubt and mistrust are part of science itself: a statement is not correct simply because it was made by scientists. It is part of scientific progress that not all phenomena can be explained immediately. There can certainly be phases in which there are different explanations for the same phenomenon because the level of knowledge is not yet sufficient to decide on one of them. The dispute over the different explanations is a necessary part of scientific progress. Conspiracy theorists are building on this dispute. Initially, there was an assessment that face masks did not protect well against the transmission of the virus, and this assessment was later revised based on new evidence.
On the other hand, the bourgeois scientific enterprise is of course not just an apparatus for finding the truth; It is often about completely different things (research funding, filling positions, prestige, Nobel Prizes, etc.). In addition to the fundamentally constructive and positive attitude of scientists towards the existing state and social order, there are also a lot of connections, for example with the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Anyone who denies this and calls for people to simply believe the authorities is making themselves a bit ridiculous and naive.
But to conclude from this that all research results of bourgeois science are nonsense and to therefore feel entitled to deny the existence of a virus without ever having even looked into an electron microscope is something different. It is one thing to reflect on the fact that discussions and controversies in science are not always conducted only from the perspective of truth. It only follows from this that, even with more difficult questions that can actually only be answered in the laboratory, it is important to remain attentive to whether scientists may have made interest-driven errors in their thinking when interpreting their results or setting up the experimental setup.
It is something completely different to consider science to be completely irrelevant and to believe that with a little internet research, your own school knowledge of biology and a few strong prejudices, you can explain what the world looks like much better. The opposite of belief in experts is not ignorance.
15. Aren't the media one-sided and lying?
It is probably no secret that most media outlets are not forums for left-wing social criticism, and that journalists do not necessarily deal objectively with concerns and analyzes that don't fit their ideological mold. It is probably also clear to many people that the media directly and indirectly, consciously and unconsciously, influences the “formation of opinions” of the population through weighting and attention. There are also direct lies as well as very obvious incitement, for example in the Springer press.
Only: the good old accusation of “lying press” assumes that the journalists intentionally distort the truth. However, media professionals are usually not that reflective; they are just as narrow-mindedly ideological and nationalistic as most members of society (see question 11).
16. Are there national characteristics when it comes to conspiracy theories?
In any case, even if conspiracy theories are often global, the aim is usually to defend one's own nation, with its peculiarities. In Germany, for example, there is the contradiction of, on the one hand, taking sides for Germany's size, power, independence, sovereignty, etc. On the other hand, people should condemn the Nazis' most far-reaching and temporarily successful attempt to date to radically realize German sovereignty as a Germanic racial empire. Additionally and for this reason, when assessing the Second World War, people should retrospectively take the side of the war opponents, and not that of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. And this despite the fact that the USA, Great Britain, Russia and France are also competitors today, with whom German politics also has some conflicting interests.
A lot is expected of the nationalist mind; And anyone who likes it a little more seamless, and doesn't just want to love their own country with a “broken heart” will gratefully accept the idea that the poor German people are either the victims of US corporations or of the world Jewish conspiracy. It's easier to love it that way.
17. What is the relationship between anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories?
Conspiracy theories actually have an intrinsic relationship with anti-Semitism. In both cases, actual or perceived grievances are attributed to the hidden work of a malicious group. It takes two more steps from any conspiracy theory to anti-Semitism. First, to establish ill-will and selfishness as quasi-immutable character traits. And secondly, to blame all actual or perceived evils on a small group that is somehow problematic for nationalists, that doesn't belong to their own country, and that works in secret. And so all the evils that had already arisen before and could not really be explained become an argument against “the Jews”.
18. Are conspiracy theories 'structurally anti-Semitic'?
Because conspiracy theories often have a personalizing criticism of capitalism (instead of a criticism of the system, individual culprits are found), and because the transition to anti-Semitism is so easy, they are sometimes often referred to as 'structurally anti-Semitic'. This should then disprove and refute them. But that misses the point. The term 'structurally anti-Semitic' is intended to mean that this type of criticism of capitalism leads to anti-Semitism or is even already anti-Semitic, even if Jews have not yet been considered. But a critic of the allegedly excessive power of the financial sector, such as, for example, Sahra Wagenknecht, does not necessarily have to identify a global Jewish conspiracy as the reason for the allegedly harmful activities of the financial companies. 4 This is a possible transition from the wrong thought, but it does not necessarily follow from it. That's why characterizing a point of view as 'structurally anti-Semitic' doesn't help when criticizing a mistake. Instead of assuming that the conspiracy theorist has already thought about a possible continuation of the mistake (and thus bringing the discussion down to the level of insinuations about what the conspiracy believer would actually be thinking the whole time), it would be necessary to show why a conspiracy theory as a moral and personalizing critique of capitalism wrongly criticizes its object; regardless of whether it is intended for Jews or not.
19. What role did “freedom” really play in the Corona protests?
Civil liberty is the right to arbitrariness without reason or argument within the framework of the applicable laws. This carte blanche to stupidity, the right not to see and understand anything, to take a narrow-minded stance on arguments and facts, is practically claimed by the protests.
In Corona times, they are ignited by the fact that the state has suddenly defined the framework of the exercise of its own arbitrariness much narrower. This was not logically comprehensible in all its details and was not always carried out in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Constitution. Above all, however, it was justified by the solidarity-based cohesion of society. This has caused quite a bit of mistrust. This has been exacerbated by the fact that in the course of the general lockdown, scientific knowledge has also changed and expanded, and some assumptions have not proven to be correct or not so important. In fact, the measures presented as objective were in part only the result of speculation by the rulers, who interpreted the scientific findings politically. All bourgeois subjects are familiar with the trick of having to package one's own interest as the general interest. Then it is obvious that people who did not like the measures for whatever reason suspect that this was also the case here. And is therefore trying to delegitimize the community's need for solidarity in Corona times by castigating it as oppression, behind which completely different interests (health dictatorship, profit, surveillance state, etc.) stand.
Against the moral obligation to approve the corona measures in the bourgeois public, the "lateral thinkers" polemicize against a "dictatorship of opinions" in the name of freedom. And against the scientific statements on which the political interpretations and government measures are based, they insist that there are merely different opinions.
For a long time, the bourgeois public also considered the juxtaposition of scientific statements, half-knowledge, attitudes and total nonsense to be a desirable pluralism. In many discussions, facts were often regarded as a matter of opinion. For some time now, it has been increasingly pointed out that everyone has the right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. Most protesters see it that way, too, but they don't believe the facts of the government and bourgeois science. They suspect that they are trying to suppress facts, ways of thinking and approaches in order to enforce their own interests. They then want to defend "freedom" against this.
This fits quite well with the idea of freedom of the AfD and other right-wingers, who defend their freedom to argue for racist, anti-Semitic, völkisch ideas (and so on) without being excluded for it. When the protesters talk about freedom, they usually mean their freedom to hold on to their convictions without having to worry about arguments and criticism. They also often mean their freedom to trumpet their beliefs without being criticized for it. So it works that even people who have Russia, Hungary, Poland, etc. as political role models are now dressing up as champions of fundamental rights.
20. Are all Corona protesters right-wing?
In addition to the right-wing radicals, there are certainly also the "actually concerned citizens", this term now used without irony: On the one hand, those who became uneasy about all the restrictions and who noticed the existing contradictions in state actions and who then came up with strange explanations. On the other hand, there were also groups who were existentially affected by the restrictions and who experienced first-hand the contradiction between national solidarity rhetoric and real administrative practice. As a third group, there will also have been a number of people who first despaired of the restrictions and isolations, and then began to doubt everything. And then there are those who have always believed that the current regime is deliberately driving the place to the wall and who are only finding new material for their already established judgment and see recruitment potential in all these groups.
21. Where does the sudden distrust of the state come from?
This isn't sudden at all. The bourgeois state imposes an extremely contradictory way of thinking on its citizens. On the one hand, citizens should believe that all people are wolves who, without political authority or rule, would attack each other in pursuit of their interests. On the other hand, they should believe that the government protects them from this and that it has no interests other than to grant them this protection.
This contradiction between a negative view of man and an ideal of good rule can be resolved in two ways. On the one hand, the state is seen as a force for good that protects the community against evil and stupid individuals, and trust in the institutions of state and society is encouraged. On the other hand, and this is what we are dealing with here, a fundamental distrust is preached: the (current) rulers are also merely human, I.e. selfish and therefore probably want something bad; According to most conspiracy theorists, they should be replaced by new government personnel who would again serve the actual purpose of the state (the purpose of the state would then really be “service to the people”). Actually, that's a contradiction in terms - albeit an unavoidable one.
People should not confuse this distrust of the state, inspired by the ideal of good rule, with correct social criticism. It is one thing to prove that ruthlessness towards workers and nature arises from the principles of the state and capital, and that therefore nation states, when they want to prevent harm to their people and increase their benefit, have no intention of creating or introducing a good life for everyone. It is something else to believe that all the unpleasant and brutal effects of national politics and capitalist business activity result from evil will, selfishness, corruption, greed for money and the desire for power. The shift away from the objectivity of meanness and brutality into the subjective spitefulness of its agents is neither a small mistake, nor an aberration, nor a precursor to reasonable social criticism, but the salvation of honor for a community whose principles are thus affirmed.
22. What are typical left-wing mistakes?
Attacks from the right often lead to leftists defending what they are attacking, even though they themselves are actually criticizing it. Other leftists, on the other hand, see right-wing criticism primarily as criticism and believe that they can easily convert it into left-wing criticism. Both are wrong.
The best remedy against conspiracy theories is neither the uncritical defense of the state, society, media, science, etc., nor ingratiating oneself with nationalist, anti-science discontent. But rather: education about the real conditions, for example criticism of the state health policy for what it is: ensuring that the population can be used by the state and capital. 5 Health policy also uses scientific findings and is rational under the given circumstances. But it doesn't have the aim of ensuring that everyone is healthy and happy. And should not be confused with it.
Enlightenment is more unpleasant than belief systems, world-views, and ideologies because it calls for a break with the existing status quo. But there is at least one thing that correct theory can provide: the feeling of having seen through something important and essential. With one small difference: if the theory is correct, this feeling is justified. 6
Footnotes:
1. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verschwörungstheorie
2. There are also measurement and survey errors that indicate a non-existent connection; However, this does not play a role in the context of conspiracy theories.
3. It doesn't really matter whether a government has its opposition spied on, or a company wants to cover up the fact that the medicine it produces has nasty side effects, or lawyers outsmart the tax office, or people use their political connections to make money. Everything is just treated as a disruption to the moral order (“It’s not right!”) that needs to be punished as a deterrent. Mechanisms of the constitutional state (presumption of innocence, statute of limitations, procedural errors) often contribute to great disappointment: the extent of the injustice and the extent of the punishment do not match for the outraged legal consciousness.
4. You can find a criticism of Wagenknecht from the Frankfurter Group in three parts here: https://gegen- Kapital-und-nation.org/von-lenin-zu-lucke-ein-buch-und-seine-weltanschauung/
5. On our website you can find texts about the state's corona and health policy .
6. You can find more correct theory about the capitalist mode of production in our book “The Misery has System: Capitalism” , free as a PDF on our website. But you are also welcome to convince us that we are wrong!
Comments
Post a Comment