"Fighting words against the opposition" - Part 3

Contents

Part 1
"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use
Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?
Who are conspiracy theorists and who are their enemies?
What is labelled a conspiracy theory today?
What favours the emergence of conspiracy theories

Part 2
Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorists, fake news - origins, distinctions and significance
Today, the USA is often seen as the origin and hotspot of conspiracy theories - for obvious reasons
An example from the early days of the USA
Several examples from the recent past
"Conspiracy theories" arising from mistrust of the government, military and intelligence services
The mood in the USA

Part 3
Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"
Why conspiracy theories arise
A conspiracy theory fills a gap
Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world
Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised
Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking
What this has to do with Donald Trump
Conclusion and evaluation

Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"

There are numerous topics and specialised areas that are either dismissed as conspiracy topics or conspiracy theories altogether. Or a large number of people are not convinced by the official accounts of some topics; many people question them.
These include some very controversial and significant topics. Some very different examples are listed here:

• New World Order - NWO
• Climate policy - man-made climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide
• "The German Question" - Consequences of the war, Germany's international legal situation since 1945
• Geoengineering, influencing the weather - HAARP and "chemtrails"
• Ukraine 2014 - "Maidan revolution" and war
• Blasting of the "North Stream" Baltic Sea pipelines, 2022
• CORONA pandemic and the mRNA vaccines
• Influence of large supranational organisations or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the WHO, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and others

There is much more that could be mentioned in this series.
On all these topics there are several articles from established media, research by "alternative media", judgements by courts, statements by governments or politicians, documents, scientific research and studies, books, film contributions and so on. But nevertheless, all of these matters together are something like "mined terrain" - each in its own way. If you look into them in detail, you run the risk of being seen as a crank or extremist, losing your scientific reputation or even getting into serious legal trouble.

Why conspiracy theories arise

Why this mistrust, the questions and speculation, how did and do assumptions and theories come about that paint a different picture to the one officially proclaimed? Why do many people see matters and questions as important that are deliberately bypassed in the major media or, above all, by political actors?
Of course, there is no short and simple answer to these questions. Several factors must come together or a chain of events must be seen to explain how theories emerge that give rise to a conspiracy by certain circles against the masses of the population, against the country, the world public, against peace, against the truth itself, and finally solidify in a usually lengthy process.

There are several possible explanations:

• Lack of reliable and credible information, official statements are incomplete, flimsy and even seem contradictory.
• Official accounts contain obvious errors, disregard important sources and obscure connections because something is actually being concealed. (For example, the content of official protocols or similar documents is deliberately withheld from the public).
• Mistrust of sources or public representations per se, because they have proven to be deliberately misleading and false in the past and therefore have little credibility.
• Last but not least, certain individuals, institutions or companies associated with the event in question are generally regarded by the general public as dubious or not very credible due to numerous scandals or dishonesty in the past. This is a significant fact that gives rise to mistrust and speculation.

"Trust is a delicate plant; if it is destroyed, it will not come back as soon as possible."

• Otto von Bismarck. German Chancellor, Empire from 1871

In addition, several small or large events, processes and statements - apparently - go well together, complement each other:
If something that happened recently is linked to an event that happened a long time ago and makes (supposed) sense and a conclusive connection, and if the search for further connections reveals possible links that form a picture like a jigsaw puzzle, at least a basis for further assumptions and theories is created.
If people or groups repeatedly appear in comparable events, and if developments can possibly be categorised in a larger whole, the idea suggests itself that there is less chance involved and that there really are connections.

The systematic search for correlations and connections between events is justified, indeed imperative for free-thinking, critical people and scientific research. Whether this search leads to "the one truth" is initially irrelevant. What matters is whether this enquiry is legitimate. And yes, it certainly is. After all, having assumptions, theories or hypotheses that are then investigated is also a method of serious science, regardless of the discipline. And when it comes to war and peace, freedom, democracy and fundamental rights, health and important scientific explanations, asking questions, researching and publishing must not be criminalised or denigrated in a free and constitutional society.
In a free country, citizens must not be prohibited from critically questioning and making assumptions, whether they are academic journalists, non-academic journalists, media professionals, bloggers or YouTubers. Everyone has the right to ask questions and analyse facts. If politicians or the media do not recognise this right by denigrating and criminalising people, they are first and foremost demonstrating their own undemocratic attitude.

It can therefore be argued that discrediting and denigrating people and certain views serves to ensure that topics and contexts are not investigated and that the public is not prepared to do so.

This begs the question: "Who has a massive interest in this and what goals are being pursued to suppress theories on certain topics and the questioning of narratives?"
However, these questions will not be explored here, as it would go too far and a separate conspiracy theory would have to be created at this point.

A conspiracy theory fills a gap

Where mistrust prevails and, on top of that, representations do not appear conclusive, there is a credibility gap. If this is not just the case for one individual, but if this credibility gap arises among many people for similar reasons, then well-founded assumptions or theories of individuals fall on fertile ground and spread rapidly. Not only that: these assumptions or theories are further developed collectively through further evidence or research.

In the days before the internet, the leading circles were able to limit these unwanted questions and theses through simple measures. In addition, the possibilities for dissemination and, above all, the speed of exchange were limited anyway.
Today, in the digital age, with the internet and social media, it is of course much more difficult for governments, political parties and state institutions to get to grips with this. Governments and state institutions and their associated ideologues and lobbyists are finding it increasingly difficult to weaken uncomfortable opinions, assumptions and theories. Strictly speaking, it is impossible unless very restrictive and diverse measures are taken. For this reason, the measures against free exchange on the Internet are gradually being tightened, as we can observe. This is done with the justification of wanting to take action against hate comments or hate speech and various forms of cybercrime. However, this is only one side of the coin; limiting free exchange is apparently another key objective.

Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world

So far, we have mainly been talking about the USA, where many people do not believe official accounts of major events.
But what is the situation in other countries; what is the situation in Europe? Well, a development can be recognised in some European countries. Also based on mistrust of the leading media and official statements from politicians, more and more "alternative" accounts and background research are coming to light. In many European countries, the major media and some politicians are complaining that large numbers of people are believing "conspiracy narratives". Those who condemn this development should be aware of one thing: Mistrust and an assumed lack of credibility lead to people no longer accepting representations from certain sources. Those who complain loudly and condemn citizens for their "belief in conspiracies" should prioritise thinking about why an increasing number of people no longer believe the major, often pro-government media. Where does the loss of trust in established politics come from? Why do many people become so mistrustful that they look elsewhere for connections, background information and explanations for events and developments, but not to the leading media and influential party politicians? These are the key questions that need to be investigated.

And no, it is certainly not the increasingly criticised and condemned internet or social media that are the cause of the emergence and spread of counter-narratives and theses that contradict the widespread representations. Modern digital media are not the sole cause; they merely amplify and accelerate like a catalyst.
It should not be forgotten that there is also a large and rapidly increasing number of printed books and journals that deal with certain topics in detail and in many cases with extensive research. It is not easy to determine whether the investigations and conclusions are correct or whether they always correspond to the truth, given the complicated questions and fields of investigation. However, this is also not possible with the evening news or articles and contributions in the leading media.
But the fact that entire subject areas and issues are being suppressed and pushed aside with all their might, and that their investigation and discussion is being loudly condemned, clearly expresses to many people that these topics and issues, as well as research into them, are obviously indeed controversial and important. Otherwise no such effort would be made to suppress them.

People who do not want to be deprived of free thought, free information and a free exchange of opinions are increasingly coming up against limits in the supposedly free Western world.

Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised

It is important to distinguish between different main categories of conspiracy theories
I. Conspiracy theories or narratives that are deliberately spread by governments, heads of state and circles close to the government or influential political parties with the help of the major media available to them in a country
The aim of these usually strategically developed and disseminated conspiracy claims is generally to influence and control the mood and opinion-forming in the country or sphere of influence concerned (communities of states, "Western world") in the best possible way. One-sided representation by omitting background information and contexts is mainly used here as an obvious method.

II. "Conspiracy theories" that arise among the population due to mistrust of published accounts. These are fuelled by the fact that statements by governments, leading politicians or the leading media are perceived as untrustworthy.

These conspiracy theories under II. must be divided into two further subcategories:

1. Conspiracy theories that can be argued and factually substantiated
   These are often accompanied by numerous references and a detailed review of official statements, documents and verifiable events and statements. Their written form and source-based elaboration often meet scientific standards. At the very least, they are valid and thus lead many people to look into them. In some cases, they are often produced by academics, other knowledgeable people, whistleblowers and well-informed journalists in a reputable manner through extensive research. This type of alleged conspiracy theory can be described as a theory in the best scientific sense and leads to tangible theses and provides a basis for further research in this area. Science thrives on the establishment and substantiation of theories, the creation of theses and their verification using scientific methods. A theory is a set of hypotheses.
   Seen in this light, the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be an insult or a pejorative, but rather an expression of respect. As this is now apparently increasingly being noticed by those who use this term as a 'killer word', other terms are increasingly being constructed, as explained at the beginning.
2. Conspiracy theories to which the term "conspiracy myths" or "fantasy" actually applies or even "faith" as a substitute religion - a substitute for religion They are recognisably world views characterised by fantasy, religious and transcendental exaggeration, including embellishments with fantasy and mythical creatures or extraterrestrials. These tales bear the hallmarks of modern myth and religious sentiment and can even include messianic saviours from real life. The justifiability and verifiability of the content by means of comprehensible sources and factual research methods are not possible for these narratives and are not important to the followers. A basis in the "real world" can nevertheless be traced.
   "QAnon" is an example of this. There are other examples. However, this area will not be listed here as it is not the subject of the considerations. It is important to distinguish these two from 1. and 2.

The fact that these two forms of conspiracy theories are often mixed together and mentioned in the same breath in the leading media or by leading politicians and celebrities means that everything that does not correspond to the statements or narratives of the established media and politicians is systematically labelled as unobjective and dubious. Through this deliberately undifferentiated equalisation of completely different representations and forms of explanation and, above all, subject areas, everything that does not fit in with the zeitgeist and mainstream narratives is generally classified as irrational and crazy. However, this also gives more and more critical minds the impression that the mainstream, which systematically proceeds in this way, is first and foremost making itself untrustworthy.

Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking

The serious, theoretical debate about conspiracy theories, "alternative truths", "disinformation" and "fake news" is proving to be complex. Delegitimisation using such terms can be seen as a perfidious, anti-democratic method directed against fundamental rights in order to banish people and their thoughts or research and theories from public discussion and brand them as despicable.
This is what is also known as "Cancel Culture" - i.e. Culture of exclusionMethod of amortisation.
The procedure of using terms and verbal stigmatisation to pigeonhole people and their opinions with derogatory labels is systematic exclusion (EXCLUSION). This exclusion involves two main steps:

1. Terms are used to create negative associations (e.g. "conspiracy theorist"), i.e. negative mental connections are generated in the recipient of the message, and
2. Negative portrayals (the devaluation of topics and people) mean that people no longer want to engage with a topic and the people who deal with it. They fear being contaminated to a certain extent.
   At the very least, this method easily catches on with people who are easy to manipulate. The term "cancel culture", which is now often used, is also appropriate for this method of exclusion. However, as this term and its use have now become a political issue, even after a few changes, it is better to Exclusion of topics and Exclusion Find use.

Whether the use of this method has actually been expanded and systematised in recent years or whether people are becoming increasingly sensitive and attentive in this regard is not the subject of discussion here. This is about the fundamentals.

In reaction to this, more and more people are asking themselves fundamental questions: Why are leading social groups aiming to exclude others from public discourse with such verbal defence?
Do we perhaps lack our own arguments and factual options to counter the content of "conspiracy narratives" and "fake news" and thus effectively refute them?
Are the alleged "conspiracy theories" so explosive and sensitive for the ruling elites because they are so close to reality that they have to be combated in this way?
Why are (opposition) groups hindered in their expression of opinion through conceptual stigmatisation?
Why do political parties, governments, media and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) go to increasing lengths to fend off certain views or criticism of conditions? Are they afraid that their own narratives, built up over the years, will easily fall apart; is it the concern that the statements and arguments of "conspiracy narrators" could dissuade many more people from "thinking correctly"?
If they are just talking nonsense, the mass of citizens should recognise it as such, shouldn't they?
This would make the "conspiracy narrators" insignificant per se.
And if these issues are being fought so resolutely, then there is probably something to them - they are obviously not so nonsensical, otherwise they would not be fought. This is considered further below.
One thing seems clear: this type of stigmatisation and exclusion is intended to deliberately narrow the corridor for publicly discussed topics and theses.
It is precisely the method, the determined and increasingly combative-aggressive way in which action is taken against statements, declarations and their authors, that gives rise to the suspicion that leading elites are very much afraid of losing their sovereignty of interpretation and opinion.

What this has to do with Donald Trump

The former US president and current presidential candidate, Donald Trumpis now seen by many, in the USA as well as in numerous other countries, as a fighter against the ruling elites, who are viewed with suspicion and mistrust. Donald Trump now has the nimbus of a fighter 'Alone against the system', against the established power structure and challenge him.
For taking on the aforementioned forces in their eyes, Trump is assured of hero status among some Americans, come what may. And it is precisely the attempts to make it impossible for Trump to run for president or to ruin his reputation through court cases and campaigns that are strengthening his support among large sections of the population. Indeed, these measures directed against Donald Trump confirm in the eyes of his supporters that a powerful system of established, ruthless power mongers is united against him.
Some go even further and see Trump as a saviour, a central figure in a change for the better.

Trump benefits considerably from the fact that he did not start any wars during his presidency and repeatedly emphasised that he wanted to end wars and prevent new ones. As president, he held talks with the heads of government of various countries instead of focussing on verbal and military armament. This strengthens his credibility, especially among pacifists. It is precisely Trump's desire for peace that seems to make him popular with large sections of the predominantly pacifist population. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" expresses something that for the majority of Americans is a formula for restoring their country - a promising slogan for the future. US citizens want an end to the decades of impoverishment of the middle class, bankruptcies, deindustrialisation, drug misery, political instability, the funding of a global military apparatus with hundreds of military bases and an immeasurable over-expenditure on the military and war.

Donald Trump does not attach any importance to polished and well-chosen, politically correct language. He rumbles and often comes across as clumsy or fickle in his statements, but apparently few people blame him for this. For many, "Make America Great Again" expresses the hope of recreating and consolidating the USA and restoring order and justice in their own country. This also includes renewing the country's economy and industry instead of using globalisation and wars to help individuals achieve immeasurable wealth and impoverish the masses. It also expresses the desire to put the USA at the centre of things politically in a different way - not to present itself worldwide as the guardian of values and democracy while constantly waging questionable wars and destabilising other countries. Many would like to focus on their own country and the well-being of the US population.
Whether Trump will be able to hold his own as president if he is elected and whether he is serious about all his statements is, of course, unknown. In any case, the sympathy and trust that people place in him are understandable, provided that one is willing to take an honest look at the situation and developments in the USA and analyse the state of the citizens and the situation of the United States.
One thing must be emphasised: It is by no means clear whether Donald Trump has damaged democracy and divided society or whether, on the contrary, his success thrives on the US democracy that was damaged much earlier. Trump is accused of many things. However, the really big mistakes were made in the USA many decades earlier.

Conclusion and opinion

As explained above, the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are fighting terms that are used to specifically marginalise people, topics and theories. Various derivations of "conspiracy theory" are also used for this marginalisation, such as "conspiracy narrative", "conspiracy myth", "conspiracy ideology" and "conspiracy fantasy". Related stigmatising neologisms are also used. Furthermore, marginalisation is carried out in an undifferentiated manner.
In the same breath, supposedly "right-wing" critics of party or government action are regularly accused of hostility towards democracy or endeavours against the state. The fact that criticised politicians brand the rejection of their policies and opposition per se as hostile to the state and democracy in turn undermines democratic principles themselves. When one's own party and political goals are equated with the state, this reveals a mixture of megalomania and a tendency towards totalitarianism. This is how oppositional activity is damaged. Opposition is systematically penalised in this way. Fighting opposition groups is a characteristic of totalitarian endeavours.

There is a lot of talk about media literacy. It is essential for media literacy not to let those who are part of the media business and who are obviously defending their power and authority of interpretation lead the way when choosing a medium and sources of information.
Media literacy and maturity - in the sense of Immanuel Kant's definition of "enlightenment" - includes being able to search for information independently and not being dictated to.

Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, 1724 to 1804) explained:

"Enlightenment is man's exit from his self-inflicted immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's intellect without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-inflicted if the cause of it is not a lack of understanding, but a lack of resolution and courage to make use of it without the guidance of another.„

* * *

It is important for citizens who want to gain knowledge in order to form their own opinion to differentiate between fantasies, propaganda and serious theories. This applies regardless of whether it is a service offered by the large, established media or so-called alternative media. There is one thing media consumers should never do: let politicians and the major mainstream media tell them what the right source of information and the truth is and which sources they should never trust. In doing so, they voluntarily surrender their maturity - they remain in self-inflicted immaturity. Obedience and maturity are mutually exclusive.

Anyone who uses grand gestures and strong words to devalue the representations and views of others is pursuing a goal. And when party politicians, government circles and leading media - especially state-affiliated media organisations - tell us what is right and what is wrong, we need to listen up.

Opposition that is convenient and manageable for those in power is not real opposition. If only the convenient opposition is tolerated and other points of view are fought against, this is tantamount to synchronisation. Dealing with opinions and opposition in this way is contrary to democracy and the rule of law. But what then remains of a political and social system where only certain opinions freely expressed or customised scientific research published and only tamed opposition is tolerated? The answer must be: it remains Totalitarianism.

And if a conspiracy theory really is a conspiracy theory in the best sense of the word and presents a comprehensive conspiracy, how do we deal with it? Let's assume that, in extreme cases, such a conspiracy theory appears implausible due to its scope and far-reaching nature, because it goes beyond the imaginable.
Imagine that the circumstances and alleged conspiratorial events described in this way - if they are real - may have a negative impact on your own life, may have a considerable detrimental effect on social freedom, self-determination, health, security, modest prosperity and the future of coming generations - do you close your eyes to this just because others say so? Would it be sensible to look the other way? Or is it perhaps better to take a second look and then make your own judgement?

This is certainly not a call to chase after every pipe dream and every new fantasy. No, on the contrary: the aim is to acquire the maturity to take a look for oneself and to form a picture of what is probable, plausible and significant and what, on the other hand, is certainly nonsense. It's about the simple basic principle: if I allow the influential and opinion multipliers, who are lobbyists in their own right, to explain to me what I can and cannot regard as right and true, I voluntarily remain immature.

If a complex thesis is based on a large number of well-researched sources and is therefore comprehensible, you must not allow lobbyists and propagandists to convince you that it is all nonsense. Rather, we should at least consider the possibility that there are connections, events and processes that we did not even suspect before. If we allow ourselves to be persuaded that we should not concern ourselves with such matters, then we are no more acting responsibly than a trained animal.

There are also other aspects. As we have seen in recent years, numerous supposedly nonsensical conspiracy theories have subsequently been confirmed as true or realistic and what we were told emphatically by the mainstream in politics and the media has turned out to be untrue.
Those who doubted these official accounts and paid attention to "stupid conspiracy theories" were on the right side more than once. At least these doubts were seriously justified. This has become particularly clear in recent months in Germany (and in some other countries) in connection with COVID-19 and the comprehensive measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus. It is gradually becoming apparent that the measures were indeed disproportionate and mostly ineffective, much of it causing greater damage than the disease itself, that the supposedly helpful vaccinations, which we were forced to do by means unworthy of a constitutional state, were almost ineffective.

The situation is similar with face masks, which were initially labelled as unnecessary and ineffective by the political and scientific mainstream until around April 2020. The background to this was that there were very few face masks in Germany, and the few that were available were to be reserved for medical staff. The fact that there was a shortage was concealed by claiming that they were ineffective anyway, which was true.

People were then encouraged to make their own face masks, or small domestic companies switched their production to masks. However, there was no business to be made for key people. In the second half of 2020, we in Germany were suddenly bombarded with studies and supposedly new findings that face masks were absolutely essential to prevent infection (of others) and the spread of COVID-19. Laws and regulations were passed that forced us to wear masks everywhere in public spaces, even children and sick people... And those who opposed this, who had previous explanations of the ineffectiveness in mind or knew of new studies that also emphasised the health risks of the prescribed masks, were ridiculed. And people who suspected a scam and fraud were ridiculed. But that was not all: it turned out that parliamentarians from some parties and their relatives were making a considerable profit from the import and sale of face masks. "Mask deals" were raking in tens of millions. It doesn't take long to wonder who was on the right side here: the suspicious or the gullible.

People were maltreated with nonsensical, unscientific and inhumane measures. The considerable risks that these new vaccinations entailed for many were hushed up and minimised. Scientists and experts from various disciplines - virologists, epidemiologists, psychologists, paediatricians, mathematicians and others - warned and predicted in great detail that the state bans and coercive measures were pointless and what would happen and what would occur. They were ostracised, ridiculed, censored and in some cases legally and socially cornered, lost their reputation or even their jobs and - and this is crucial here - what these people said was either hushed up, censored away or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Now, with hindsight, these admonishers and critics have been proved right; it is gradually becoming clearer that the alleged conspiracy theories were correct on a number of key points. A large number of victims of this propaganda are now suffering from severe vaccine injuries. Many of these vaccine injuries go unreported because doctors do not recognise or do not want to see the connection between the COVID vaccination and the illness that often follows months later. Those affected also do not want to recognise a possible connection between a serious illness and the COVID vaccination. And so, especially in Germany, possible suspected cases of vaccine damage are often not reported to the responsible authorities (e.g. in Germany Paul Ehrlich Institute: Notification forms / Online notification - Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (pei.de)) are not indicated. A high number of unrecognised vaccine injuries are to be expected. The fact that vaccinating doctors now have to reckon with legal consequences because they did not adequately inform patients about the possible risks of the new, only provisionally authorised vaccines is also leading to a certain reluctance to report suspected cases. The issue of serious vaccine damage is being dealt with by numerous courts in Germany; the lawsuits are usually dismissed. Alleged corona vaccination damage in court (deutschlandfunk.de); Duty of doctors to provide information for Covid-19 vaccinations with an mRNA vaccine (beck.de) and others. For the plaintiffs concerned and their lawyers, it is almost impossible to prove "causality giving rise to liability".

There is a German proverb: "Trust is good - control is better." This can serve as a guideline when it comes to dealing with the media and news. A responsible citizen does not trust blindly, but tries to obtain certainty as far as possible. This is especially true when it comes to health, freedom or the question of peace and war. Restricting information options by denigrating and marginalising opinions and people by using defamatory terms primarily deprives citizens of information options.

Click here for part 1

and here to part 2.