CPAC HUNGARY, a major international event organised by the 'Center for Fundamental Rights', took place on 25 and 26 April 2024. It was a major event at which 80 politicians, journalists and influencers from six continents appeared as speakers and panellists and at least 3,000 participants, including around 500 foreign guests, came together.

A welcoming speech by Donald Trump as a video message was also part of the two-day programme, in which he referred to the Hungarian President, Viktor Orbán, as his friend.

In the mainstream media, at least in Germany, this event naturally went unnoticed.
The event website states: „The real media, the real news media network, was represented by 36 media brands from 13 countries, with 140 press representatives. There were also 50 exhibiting partners, including think tanks from the US and Central Europe, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy and Poland.“
Zitat Ende

https://www.cpachungary.com/en/

The programme consisted mainly of speeches and discussion panels. Apparently, Hans-Georg Maaßen (Werte-Union, formerly CDU) was the only German guest in the programme. The two days of the event were divided into several sections, each of which had a motto or title: "WOKEBUSTERS", "SOVEREIGNTY LIVES, GLOBALISM DIES", "SAVE THE WEST, PROTECT THE BORDERS", "GENDER ZERO", "WE WIN, THEY LOSE - 2024, AN ELECTION SUPERYEAR". The upcoming elections to the EU Parliament were a key topic at the event and took centre stage in a number of speeches and discussions.

The programme consisted mainly of speeches and discussion panels. Apparently, Hans-Georg Maaßen (Werte-Union, formerly CDU) was the only German guest in the programme. The two days of the event were divided into several sections, each of which had a motto or title: "WOKEBUSTERS", "SOVEREIGNTY LIVES, GLOBALISM DIES", "SAVE THE WEST, PROTECT THE BORDERS", "GENDER ZERO", "WE WIN, THEY LOSE - 2024, AN ELECTION SUPERYEAR". The upcoming elections to the EU Parliament were a key topic at the event and took centre stage in a number of speeches and discussions.
https://www.cpachungary.com/en/agenda

The speech of Eva Vlaardingerbroek

I would like to draw your attention to the speech by Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a young Dutch woman. In her speech, she addressed the consequences of immigration policy in the majority of European countries. She described the replacement migration, Islamisation and violent crime that the proponents of immigration impose on the citizens of European countries in concise and catchy words and backed this up with figures. Eva Vlaardingerbroek also explains why she believes that the elites have declared war on the white peoples. She makes clear in no uncertain terms her rejection of the EU bureaucracy and the "rotten foundations" of the European Union, on which, in her opinion, it is no longer possible to build a house. Here is the text of her speech for you to read - the English text was taken unchanged from her speech: * * *

Hello Hungary, hello Budapest,

hello fellow Europeans and American Friends

Thank you so much for having me

Allow me to skip formalities for a moment and dive into a subject that is no so cheerful but very, very nescessary to discus. Let me walk through the last seven days in Europe. This week in Stockholm, three elderly women in the 70s were stabbed in broad daylight on the street.

In London, four people were stabbed in a time span of just 42 hours.

In Paris, hundrets of African migrants took tot he streets to riot, and in Brigolo, also in France, yet another church was bunred down tot he ground.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just a few incidents of just a couple of days on our beautiful continent. But we all know that these „incidents“ aren’t incidents anymore. If there is one thing that’s for sure, it’s we know and our governments know that there is a link between mass migration and crime.

In the Duth city of Dordrecht something interesting happened the other days. They announced, and it is a small city in the Netherlands, in my home country, that a new asylum center will be put in that little town. And what did the municipality do? They said, we are going to offer citizens who live in the vicinity oft he center 1000 EUROS to take extra safety measures.

Our new reality in Europe consists of frequent rape, stabbings, killings, murders, shootings, even beheadings. But let me be clear about one thing. This did not used happen before. This is a newly imported problem.

Samuel P Huntington predicted this over 25 years ago, when he wrote, and I quote, „in the new world of mass migration, the most pervasive, important and dangerous conflicts will not be between the social classes. They will not be between the rich and the poor. They will be between people to different cultural entities. Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within civilisations.“ Well, boy, was he right!

And the worst part is, we as a society seem to have become indifferent to it. When a another whit boy or white girl dies at the hands of an immigrant, we might shake our head, we might let out a sigh, we might even get angry for a minute or two, and then we go on with our lives. We offer the family thoughts and prayers, but nothing ever changes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, what does that say about us? This is a response of a society that has already given up. A society that has already accepted it’s defeat.

But is this true? Have we given up? Do we really accept the new reality that our globalist leaders have in mind for us?

I know one thing for sure, and that is if nothing changes, if we don’t start seriously fight for our continent, our religion, our people, our countries, then this time that we life in will go down in history as the time in which western nations no longer had to get invaded by hostile armies in ordert to be conquered. This time will then go down in history as the periode in which the invader was actively invited in by a currupt elite. And not only did this corrupt elite invite the enemy in, the made the native population pay for it, too.

Everyone who has eyes can see it. The native white Christian European population is beeing replaced at an ever-accelerating rate.

Let me back this up for you with some statistics from my home country.

Let us take Amsterdam, the capital. Amsterdam currently consists of 56 per cent migrants.

The Hague, 58 per cent migrants.

Rotterdam, almost 60 per cent migrants.

And, of course, most of this immigrants come from non-Christian, non-Western African and Middle Eastern countries. Conclusion, the Dutch population is already outnumbered in the majority in our cities.

But let’s look onwards. London, 54 per cent migranten. Again, conclusion, native population outnumbered.

Brussels, colour me shocked, 70 per cent migranten. Conclusion, the native population majorly outnumbered. And other Europeans will, of course, follow suit soon if they haven’t already.

So I’m going to draw the forbidden conclusion, The Great Replacement Theory is no longer a theory, it’s reality. And what’s interesting about replacement is that the establishment will either deny its existence or, when they admit to it, they say that it’s a good thing, that the native European population is soon no longer a majority on its own Continent.

Dutch national disgrace and dubbed ‚climate Pope‘ Frans Timmermans already stated in 2015 that diversity is humanity’s destiny and that Europe will be diverse. And, of course, by now, I think we all know what they mean with the word ‚diversity‘. It means less white people, less of you.

Imagine this in an Asian or an African country. Imagine their leaders rejoicing in the fact that their people will soon no longer be a majority in their own country! Absolutely unthinkable – unimaginable

So what in the world is wrong with our leaders?

The underlying sentiment of what they say is always the same. Our establishment claims that white people are evil and that our history is somehow fundamentally different from that of others.

Consciously or unconsciously, they have sucked up the lies and the anti-white dogmas oft the neo-Marxist critical race theory. That’s why the totalitarians in Brussels are trying to force you, the Hungarian people, a sovereign nation to accept immigrants despite the fact that the population has said „no“ and so as the government.

But make no mistake, the majority of the Dutch people haven’t asked for it either. Just like Brussels is forcing Hungary to accept these hordes of immigrants, they are doing the same now even in the smallest of towns of the Netherlands. No part may remain Dutch in the tradition sense of the word. No part of Europe may remain European.

And it is not difficult to untderstand why. If the old Europe still exists in certain places and people will be able to compare the new Europe tot he old and newsflash, they will prefer the old. That’s why the Eurocrats hate Hungary so much.

And their message is clear. Our way of life, our Christian religion, our nations, they have to go without exception. Their vision of the future is the neo-liberal, unrecognizable Europe where every city becomes of like Brussels: Ugly, dirty unsafe, zero social cohesion, where the buildings are constantly under construction and they never ever seem to finish. And even when they do, the end result is uglier somehow than what they started with.

And what are we left with? A permanent state of isolation, confusion and disorientation

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the New World Order.

Applause from the audience

So, what’s the antidote? – A strong Christian Europe of sovereign nation states. That’s why we need to outright reject the lie that nationalism causes war. It’s not nationalism or national sovereignty that causes war. It’s expansionism! And where in Europe do we find that nowerdays? – In one place and one place only: Brussels.

Applause

Isn’t it funny how the same people who erode our national sovereignty and love to do it, give it all up to the Eurocrats there, that those people are now telling us that we need to spend billions and billions of euros on the national sovereignty of Ukraine?

Applause

It is a joke, honestly. And it’s a pretty sick, expensive and dangerous joke.

During a recent interview, I got asked by an interviewer, „Do you think you ever go too far? Do you think that you’re ever too radical?“ I thought about it for a second and I said „No. No, I don’t think I go too far.“

Applause

Truth must be told, ladies and gentlemen, I think we in Europe do not go far enough. I think that, if we really think about the organized structural attack on our civilization, that we don’t do enough.

Do we do enough to stop the attack on our families, on our continent, on our counties, on our religion?

When we hear about another murder, another stabbing of a young, innocent child, do we do enough?

When we know that our national sovereignty has been given up in less than a century to Brussels, do we do enough?

When we hear that Christian kids in Germany are now converting to Islam to fit in, do we do enough?

I don’t think so.

The totalitarian institute of the European Union needs to come down. Let me be clear, I don’t believe in reforms. When the foundation of your institution is rotten, and that is the case in Bussels, you can rebuild the house in top of it all you want, but it is still going to crumble. The only answer is the Tower of Babel needs to be destroyed.

Applause

Ladies and gentlemen, we are the daughters and sons of the greatest nations on earth, …

Applause

And we need to ask ourselves, what has happened to us? Where do we come from, and more importantly, where are we going? Our elites have declared a war on us, and now it is time for us to put on the full armour of God, fight back – and win.

Thank you very much

Applause

https://x.com/evavlaar?lang=de

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dHHYwE3CQ (English original and English close-captioned)

Der Beitrag Das CPAC Hungary – eine Großveranstaltung der internationalen Rechten in Budapest, Ende April und eindringliche Rede von Eva Vlaardingerbroek erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

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 other, primarily transatlantic network organisations
• 9/11: The aeroplane attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, in particular the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centres and the WTC7 building gave rise to much speculation.
• The assassination of the then US President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, November 1963 (However, in recent years it has gradually become apparent that this topic is increasingly being dealt with in detail in major, recognised media, decades later. This can be recognised as an indication that theories condemned as conspiracy theories can turn out to be a serious subject of research).

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 or questioning is legitimate. And yes, it definitely 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, then asking questions, researching and publishing must not be criminalised or denigrated in a free and constitutional society, even if it involves one-sided or ideological ideas.
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 or state institutions and their associated media to tone down 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 have been gradually tightened for several years, as we can observe in the Western world. The reason given for this is to combat hate comments or hate speech and various forms of cybercrime and to prevent "disinformation". However, this is only one side of the coin; limiting the free exchange of information is obviously 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, major media outlets and established 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 accounts 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 suspicious 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. However, it is precisely this accelerated exchange that has a political effect.
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 depth 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. And from our own experience, it must be stated here that misrepresentations, the purposeful dissemination of one-sided accounts or the dissemination of misleading narratives are part of the everyday business of the leading German media and, above all, the public service media.
But the fact that entire subject areas and issues are being suppressed and pushed aside with all their might, and their investigation and discussion loudly condemned, makes it clear 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, according to the logical conclusion.

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, liberal 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 - whether apparent or real - that seems to earn him sympathy from 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 set great store by 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, as has been the case in recent decades under the ostensible liberals. 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 to analyse how citizens feel and the situation of the United States.
One thing must be emphasised: It is not 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 an offer from 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 exercising power is not real opposition. If only the comfortable 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 against democracy and the rule of law. But what then remains of a political and social system when 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 considerable detrimental effects on social freedom, self-determination, war and peace, health, security, modest prosperity, 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? - Vigilance is always important.

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 persuade you that it is all nonsense. 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. This has become particularly clear in recent months in Germany (and in some other countries) in connection with COVID-19 and the extensive measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus. It is gradually becoming apparent that the measures were in fact disproportionate and mostly ineffective, that many of them caused more damage than the disease itself and that many of the images that were supposed to scare us were not taken in context or were incorrectly commented on and certainly deserved to be labelled "fake news". It is now apparent that the supposedly helpful vaccinations, which we were forced to receive by means unworthy of a state governed by the rule of law, were virtually ineffective. However, numerous terrible vaccine injuries were caused, which were previously recognised or even predicted by medical experts. These medical professionals and those who initiated and evaluated investigations into the consequences of vaccination were ridiculed, criminalised and censored wherever possible.

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.

Initially, it was said that face masks were ineffective (which was the most honest thing to say), then there were calls for people 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 stop 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... - first simple medical masks, which were sometimes distributed in public places, then FFP-2 masks, which are not suitable for meditative purposes.

And those who opposed this, who had previous explanations for the ineffectiveness in mind or knew of new studies that also emphasised the health risks of the prescribed masks, were ridiculed. People who suspected or proved fraud and deception 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 links between the COVID vaccination and the illness that often follows months later. In addition, the reporting system for vaccination injuries in Germany is questionable. 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 vaccination 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.

Der Beitrag „Kampfbegriffe gegen die Opposition“ – Teil 3 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

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

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

Conspiracy theories as well as gross lies have often been exposed in the United States of America in the past by Politicians or Media The aim is to achieve something specific in the public eye, to evoke a certain mood or to deliberately influence the majority of citizens in their behaviour. Influence the formation of opinion.

The historian and philosopher Richard Hofstadterwho was concerned with conspiracy fantasies, analysed in the first half of the 1960s in the essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (The paranoid style of American politics). In it, he explains how, in his opinion, a widespread "paranoid style" was used in American politics. Debates were thus emotionalised and objectivity eliminated. Hofstadter explains why he uses the term "paranoid style". Nevertheless, later criticism of his work repeatedly criticised the use of this term.

Throughout US history, suspicions and publicised conspiracy fantasies have been used to agitate against certain groups of people and to instil a state of insecurity or aversion in the masses of the population. Although he originally saw angry minds at work primarily on the political right and therefore focussed on this, Hofstadter identified the paranoid style among various actors in the USA, regardless of a particular political orientation. He explained that it is a style of thinking that is neither new nor necessarily right-wing.

An example from the early days of the USA

In the first half of the 19th century, the anti-Catholic movement in the USA, in the origins of which evangelical women played a major role. Individuals and newspapers led a campaign against Catholics, their institutions and further Catholic immigration with drastic conspiracy claims. This culminated in the 1850s. One newspaper article claimed: "It is a notorious fact that the monarchs of Europe and the Pope of Rome are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil and religious institutions."

But nothing of this years-long firework display of agitation and insinuations against Catholics with fuelled hysteria and hatred remained in reality. More Catholics immigrated, for example from Ireland and Italy, and nothing conspiratorial happened - the USA was not attacked or even destroyed by Catholics and the Roman Church.

It often became clear to the attentive public in retrospect that claims made by politicians or the government, portrayals in the press, fuelled fears and delusionally conjured up imminent dangers consisted of exaggerations or had no basis in reality.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

- Abraham Lincoln. (USA) Abraham Lincoln was born on 12 February 1809 near Hodgenville, Hardin County (today: LaRue County, Kentucky); he died by assassination on 15 April 1865 in Washington D.C. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the USA from 1861 to 1865.

The lax handling of the truth or what is presented as such has a long tradition in the United States of America in political and media events. Propaganda lies have long been regarded as legitimate ways of influencing moods and elections and achieving other political or economic goals. It is probably no coincidence that in the USA Manipulation and Propaganda were scientifically investigated early on and subsequently utilised for marketing methods and product advertising.

A well-known pioneer in this field was Edward Bernays with his books "Crystallising Public Opinion" and "Propaganda" from the 1920s (1). Bernays and Ivy Lee were pioneers in the USA of the Propaganda theory and public relations research, but also drew on the preliminary work of other US and European authors. The work of the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon, "Psychology of the masses" , published in 1895, is regarded as the key to this field of research and the development of mass psychology and manipulation. Some of Le Bon's numerous works are still important today.

Footnote:

(1) Edward Bernays was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and a great-grandson of the Hamburg rabbi Isaak Bernays. His mother was Freud's sister Anna, his father Ely Bernays was the brother of Freud's wife Martha. (Source: Wikipedia - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

Several examples from the recent past

The Iraq war

The way in which the US government constructed a reason for the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 is one such case of a "conspiracy theory" devised by the government in the recent past. By means of false claims and insinuations, the world public and US citizens were presented with the narrative that Iraq and, above all, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was (also) behind the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001.

When this could not be substantiated in the slightest and there was obviously no evidence to support it, the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was spread. Sceptical Europeans were insulted and contemptuously referred to as "old Europe" by the US government. The then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz as well as the Secretary of State Colin Powell were essentially responsible for these claims in order to invent a pretext for war. The British Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, strongly supported this approach, and Britain was later part of the so-called "coalition of the willing" that went to war against Iraq. As it turned out, these were lies that served as a pretext to start a war that violated international law and was ethically indefensible, and to find allies for it.

This was not the first and not the last time in US history that this was the case.

The Vietnam War

Vietnam had been scarred by a colonial war and proxy wars between various powers and a civil war since 1946 (1) and now became the theatre of a proxy war between the USA in support of South Vietnam against the Soviet Union and China on the side of communist North Vietnam.

This geopolitically and morally highly questionable entry into the war by the United States was also a catastrophe for the US military and for the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who were killed and physically and mentally injured. Added to this was the fact that Atrocities and serious war crimes of the US military became public in this war. Politically and socially, the effects were also devastating for the United States. A large number of brutalised, mentally injured and disturbed Vietnam War veterans, who did not receive adequate treatment and care from the US Army, placed a considerable burden on society for decades.

With the alleged "Tonkin incident" in August 1964, the US leadership used a lie to create a pretext for entering the Vietnam War to enter. The United States presented itself as the victim of a military attack by communist North Vietnam on the ship "Maddox" in international waters. But not only that: the US Army was already operating on the side of South Vietnam before and during the presidency of John F. Kennedy, including as part of 'Operation Plan 34A', in the Vietnamese civil war against the largely communist North Vietnam.

In reality, the situation in this civil war was much more complicated than 'communist north versus good south'. US intelligence agencies shared the details in detail with government advisors. But no attention was paid to this on the government side.
Due to deliberate misdirection through false information, the US Congress passed the "Tonkin Resolution". She gave the President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to "use all means to repel Vietnamese attacks". Johnson initially made little use of this. In the subsequent election campaign, Johnson clearly positioned himself as being in favour of peace and against US hostilities in Asian countries. His opponent, Barry Goldwater, was openly in favour of an all-out war in Vietnam, which was rejected by the vast majority of US voters.

Johnson's campaign statements later turned out to be purely calculated and dishonest. He harboured war intentions just like his opponent Goldwater. The plans for the large-scale war were already in place. The Misleading the public unwilling to go to war in the USA was then systematically continued. And Johnson, in consultation with his advisors, now did exactly what he had ostensibly rejected during the election campaign: waging a large-scale war in Vietnam.

The publication of the "Pentagon Papers" by Daniel EllsbergThe leaks, which began in 1969, gradually revealed to the public the reprehensible way in which the President and the military were acting. Firstly, Ellsberg copied the 7,000 pages of secret material from the end of 1969 and made them available to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Laos and Cambodia were also invaded and bombed by the US military, he handed the papers over to the New York Times in 1971.

"The Vietnam War began with a lie. It was triggered by an alleged attack by the North Vietnamese on one of our warships stationed in the Bay of Tonkin. But it never happened. It was a lie. It was pure propaganda to start this terrible war. Sometimes history repeats itself."

- Dustin Hoffman. USA (from https://gutezitate.com/zitate/propaganda)

The Jewish philosopher and publicist Hanna Arendt dealt with the matter and firmly condemned the concealments, untruths and purposeful lies of the US leadership. It became clear to US citizens and the world public how governments and presidents had lied, deceived and defrauded citizens over a long period of time.

Daniel Ellsberg was thus an early whistleblower, long before the days of the internet. Richard M. Nixon, who had been US President since January 1969, made desperate and again illegal attempts to prevent the feared future publication of compromising documents. This subsequently led to the "Watergate affair", which also profoundly shook the credibility and acceptance of the government, its advisors and, above all, the US President. Trust in the office of president was irrevocably lost by many. Nixon finally resigned in August 1974, thereby avoiding impeachment proceedings.
The Vietnam War led to a serious and continuing US citizens' loss of confidence in politics and government and parts of the media, indeed the political system as a whole. This is important to know in order to understand later events and today's sensitivities in the USA.

Footnote:

(1) A brief history: Since the end of the Second World War, Vietnam had been engaged in a colonial war with the then colonial power FRANCE, which later developed into a civil war with French, Chinese and initially Japanese participation. The USA was already supporting France at great expense against the communist independence fighters at this time. The Indochina War was a major proxy war in which the USA was already involved at this time. At the "Indochina Conference" in Geneva in 1954, complex peace negotiations between the participating states of the People's Republic of China, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, Vietnamese representatives, Laos and Cambodia resulted in a division into the (communist) North Vietnam and the southern part.
Without the financial and military support of the USA totalling several billion US dollars, France would have had to end the war prematurely in order to avert national bankruptcy. Various sides used torture during the Indochina War. The French used torture on a large scale, even after 1946, despite a ban on torture. During the Indochina War, an estimated one million Vietnamese lost their lives, the majority of them uninvolved civilians. Exact numbers of deaths on the various sides were not collected or published later. After the Geneva Peace Conference, the USA continued to exert direct influence and interfered heavily in internal affairs in Vietnam and Laos. In South Vietnam, a dictatorial regime followed under the Catholic Ngô Đình Diệm, who was installed and supported by the USA. A new civil war broke out against Diem's regime of terror. Initially as an armed uprising in South Vietnam, then with the participation of communist North Vietnam, a civil war developed in Vietnam.

The communist hysteria under McCarthy

In this context, the fear of communists, which was massively fuelled in the USA and by the Republican US Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s, was one of them. McCarthy exaggerated his fuelling of communist panic; he repeatedly spoke of a conspiracy against the USA. He himself sensed communist activities in central offices of the US administration, the military, political parties and the government. Excessive measures, including unfounded suspicions and unjustified persecution of innocent people, were used by the state to harm numerous people. It turned out that this was a case of paranoia and fuelled insecurity and fears, not an actual large-scale communist conspiracy.

"Conspiracy theories" arising from mistrust of the government, military and intelligence services

The following are a few well-known examples of events for which theories or theses have emerged to refute official accounts. And one thing must be clear: These conspiracy theories may seem absurd to many, but there are nevertheless clues that cause many people to doubt or come up with their own explanations. And some conspiracy theories are being investigated worldwide today. It would therefore be reckless to immediately dismiss everything that contradicts official government accounts as nonsense.

The individual examples will only be dealt with briefly, as there is not enough space here to cover them in detail. Each would be an exhaustive topic in its own right. The focus remains on the USA. There are several reasons for this, above all the fact that the USA has a major influence worldwide with its foreign and geopolitical policy and the sensitivities of US citizens are of considerable importance.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour during the Second World War

The Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 claimed the lives of 2,403 Americans, 2335 marines and 68 civilians. In addition, around 1170 were wounded. Two large US warships were sunk and many were severely damaged. Well over 300 US fighter planes, which were also stationed in Pearl Harbour, were destroyed or damaged. The Japanese air attack was carried out by over 350 aircraft, which had been brought across the Pacific by aircraft carriers and attacked the bases on the Hawaiian island of O'ahu in two main waves. Several small Japanese submarines were also involved(1).

Although the Japanese army planned in advance with secrecy and no radio communication is said to have betrayed the action, there are indications that the US secret service nevertheless had prior knowledge of an imminent attack and President Rooseveld was informed.
Since then, there has been a theory that the Americans knew of an imminent Japanese attack. US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt is said to have let it happen without taking any precautions. In doing so, he hoped to gain a welcome excuse from the largely pacifist US population to enter the Second World War alongside Great Britain - with declarations of war against Japan and Germany. This was agreed with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This controversial thesis still stirs many emotions in the USA today. However, many believe that the President (and his advisors) probably calculated this way.

Two days after the Japanese air raid, the USA declared war on Japan. The German Empire and the USA declared war on each other; Italy also sent a declaration of war to the USA. As it turned out, the Japanese Empire had completely miscalculated its strategy in several respects and achieved the opposite of what was intended.

Footnote:

(1) The air attack on the US base in Hawaii is considered an attack because the Japanese side "neglected" - by mistake or deliberately - to send the USA an official declaration of war beforehand.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy

The probably better-known conspiracy theory concerns the deadly Assassination in Dallas John Fitzgerald KennedyThere are numerous speculations and assumptions about the circumstances of Kennedy's assassination and the motives and perpetrators. These include serious theories as to what may have happened instead of the official account and who may have been behind the assassination. Some of the officially declared course of events appears less credible. Witnesses made other observations, and things happened after the attack that understandably aroused suspicion. As a result, numerous speculations quickly sprouted that the assassination attempt on the president took place in a completely different way than officially declared. In the meantime, numerous articles and several books have been written and films made worldwide on the subject.

There are assumptions that it could have been a conspiracy from US leadership circles against their own president. The communist Lee Harvey Oswald, who was presented as the assassin, could therefore not have been the actual murderer. Oswald was shot dead in a police station in Dallas by the terminally ill Jack Ruby a few days after the assassination attempt on Kennedy, before a trial against him could begin. Ruby was a dodgy mobster (member of certain criminal gangs) and nightclub owner from Dallas. Statements he made in interviews after the trial against him reinforced the impression that there was probably something else behind the assassination than officially declared. However, Ruby may have been increasingly mentally disturbed and therefore not sane. The course of events and background to Kennedy's assassination have not been conclusively clarified to this day.

The 1969 US moon landing

Another major conspiracy theory from the USA concerns the moon landing. For a long time, some have doubted that the US moon mission actually took place. In the decades since 1969, numerous conclusive statements have been made by official bodies and the media to dispel doubts. Nevertheless, there are numerous people (in the USA and internationally) who believe that the US moon landing never took place, but that the whole thing was faked.

11 September 2001

The attacks on targets in the USA using hijacked airliners on 11 September 2001 were particularly significant, with assumptions and conspiracy theories circulating about the collapse of the Twin Towers, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, shortly after the shocking event. Here too, inconsistencies and events and processes that were difficult for outsiders to comprehend raised questions, aroused suspicion and gave rise to a wide range of speculation.

As is so often the case, there are also incomplete descriptions and unconvincing explanations and neglected aspects that are not addressed by the official, state authorities. This weakens credibility. Critical minds naturally recognise such incomplete accounts or contradictions. If there is also enough imagination and mistrust of one's own government, politics in general and the media, it is obvious that numerous conjectures and conspiracy theories will arise. In addition, the attacks of September 2001 served as the reason for the start of the war in Afghanistan.

On 11 September 2001, not only was the World Trade Center destroyed, but a plane was also steered into the Pentagon and another plane, UA 93, crashed after there was probably resistance from passengers and crew against the hijackers.

Without going into the details here, it must be said that the official reports and explanations to the public about these tragedies were incomplete and appear contradictory or not satisfactorily conclusive. Added to this is the scale of the shocking event.

___

At this point, of course, it is not possible to judge whether the official accounts are correct or not. The point is to show how doubts arise and for what reasons considerations are made that reject official, state explanations or other explanations are developed, assumptions about completely different courses of events and so on are worked out in detail.

The intention here is not to take a position on the examples mentioned or to make an assessment. Rather, the cases mentioned are simply intended to illustrate how great both the mistrust and the rejection of the US leadership is and how little credibility it is considered to have by a large number of people.

The mood in the USA

The mistrust of a large part of the population towards the government, state institutions, the military and large corporations as well as wealthy (and influential) individuals, which had built up over decades and was entirely understandable, runs very deep in the USA. Past experience had taught US citizens how inventive these ruling elites are when it comes to constructing a reason to start a war or enter an existing one, deploy troops worldwide and interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

The fact that shortly afterwards the US leadership wanted to use the attacks of 11 September as justification to invade Iraq and then actually started the war in Afghanistan under this justification invited assumptions that these were engineered attacks. At the very least, they were carried out with the knowledge of secret services and were not prevented. The events fit a pattern: the USA is (allegedly) attacked and uses this as an opportunity to wage a war that apparently serves economic or geo-strategic interests. Apart from that, the USA has never been successful in its military actions since the Second World War. The USA has come out of every war with high losses, enormous costs and unachieved goals.

The attacks of 11 September 2001 were compounded by the fact that a large number of people in the western world had only had access to the internet for a few years at that time. This allowed various doubts, speculations and attempts at explanations to spread quickly and widely. As this dynamic was possibly still new to governments and secret services and caught them somewhat unprepared, there was not much to counter the speculation in 2001.

The image that many US citizens have long had of their political leadership, and which is becoming increasingly entrenched, clashes with their sense of morality and their expectations of a leading elite. The demand for morality and a sense of justice among the broad mass of the population should not be underestimated. They do not want immoral liars and warmongers as representatives and decision-makers, but a leadership elite that at least fulfils the basic moral standards that apply to society as a whole.

Over the past decades, US citizens have lost confidence in politics and in the government's ability and willingness to work for their good and for their state.

A Article from "The Economist" deals with the mistrust of the US-Americans.

Interesting in this context is the detailed study by the Pew Research Centre: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/americans-views-of-government-decades-of-distrust-enduring-support-for-its-role/

Here you get to Part 1 of "fighting words against the opposition".

Part 3 will be published shortly. Please be patient.

Der Beitrag „Kampfbegriffe gegen die Opposition“ – Teil 2 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

The terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" have been used frequently in the media and public debates in recent years. This is not equally the case in all Western countries. In some countries, these or similar terms are used with the aim of restricting the formation of opinion.
When a representation or an entire subject area is labelled a conspiracy theory, the intention is to express contempt and disdain for both the topic or viewpoint in question and the people who deal with it. It sends the message: "These people and their representations and views are dubious and nonsensical!"

Meanwhile, for those who want to use this term to stigmatise others or present a thesis as implausible, "theory" is too weak in its pejorative effect. So now terms such as "conspiracy narrative", "conspiracy ideology", "conspiracy fantasy", "conspiracy myths" or even "rubbish narrator" or similar are also used.
Leading media, leading politicians of the established parties as well as publicists, academics and non-governmental organisations (NGO: abbreviation of the internationally used English term) use these terms to devalue. Obviously, this method of stigmatisation is used to defend certain narratives or dogmas in order to prevent them from being questioned.
The topics and areas of life affected by this are becoming more numerous; the taboo zones for thinking and expressing opinions are being expanded by means of such methods.
This method is a modern form of censorship: citizens are allowed to say anything, but not with impunity. Increasingly, you have to expect consequences if you deal with or question certain issues in the "wrong way": citizens who step out of line sometimes have to reckon with blocked social media channels, loss of reputation, social, professional or even legal measures as consequences.

A serious examination of the history and origins of "conspiracy theories" and the use of this term requires that we go back into history. Only an examination of earlier events and methods can explain what is happening today. As is so often the case, it is necessary to go into the background in order to understand what is happening today.

Due to the scope of the topic, the article is divided into three parts.

Contents

Part 1
"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use
Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?
Who are conspiracy theorists?
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

Part 1

"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use

Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?

The philosopher Karl Popper (born 1902 in Vienna, died 1994 in London) used in his book 'The open society and its enemies' Volume 2, 'False Prophets: Hegel, Marx and the Consequences' (written in New Zealand, published in English 1945, in German 1958) the concept of "Conspiracy theory of society". In doing so, he largely gave the term conspiracy theory the meaning it has today. The term "Conspiracy Theory" (English for "conspiracy theory") has a different meaning and can be found in the 'Oxford English Dictionary' several decades before the publication of Popper's book, mainly in a legal context.

Following the reporting on the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy in 1963, the term "conspiracy theory" gained currency in the USA. At that time, the term was used to dispel mistrust and plausible doubts about the official accounts of the assassination and the perpetrators, which, as is well known, has not been fully successful to this day.
Since this time, explanations and interpretations of major events have been labelled as conspiracy theories, primarily in the USA, which identify a group or institution that may be acting in conspiracy for a specific purpose. These conspirators therefore have an interest in the event, which can be placed in a larger context if necessary, and they have the means to plan and implement conspiratorial behaviour in advance.

In the USA in particular, there had long been a considerable mistrust of politics and business groups as well as exceptionally wealthy families - i.e. the ruling elite.

Who are conspiracy theorists?

As will be explained below, these questions cannot be answered simply and in general terms. Conspiracy theorists can operate in different places or positions. For decades, the term "conspiracy theory" has been applied to critical citizens or publicists who doubt official accounts and who appear with counterstatements to government and media (officially disseminated) statements.

However, the authors and earlier creators of proven conspiracy narratives and similar claims can be identified elsewhere: Governments or Pro-government circles develop conspiracy theories (allegations, insinuations) and put them out into the world. And this has demonstrably been done many times.
In doing so, they make use of the various distribution channels available to them. In the past, these were media houses, large press publishers, press agencies, radio stations and, of course, press conferences, which can be used by influential politicians and lobbyists. Today, other dissemination options are being added.

Press, media companies in general can also be authors or at least spread conspiracy claims. These cases often existed in the past, in the time before the Internet.
Since the spread of the internet, the situation has obviously become more complex, more flexible, and the emergence and spread of conspiracy theories and counter-narratives to the official narrative is happening at breakneck speed. Bloggers, suspicious citizens, imaginative minds, investigative journalists, publicists, scientists, whistleblowers, opposition activists of various kinds, fraudsters and confused personalities... since around the year 2000, all these people and groups have been able to disseminate their research, findings, assumptions and attempts at explanation, insinuations, fantasies or even delusional ideas, discuss them with numerous others and inspire each other.

And if all this seems frightening, it doesn't necessarily have to be a disadvantage. However, on the one hand, the Internet makes the situation more confusing, much more diverse and more complex. On the other hand - and this is crucial: it is much more difficult for the ruling elites and the large media groups to spread their own narratives and stories and effectively consolidate them in the public sphere in order to manipulate the masses (almost without resistance). Counter-narratives and opposing opinions immediately emerge on the internet and various social media, with specific events often underlined by mobile phone videos and eyewitnesses. The concealment and omission of information or one-sided, manipulative representations also come to the attention of some citizens more quickly - leading media are thus put under pressure. We have noticed this more frequently in Germany in recent years. The digital media therefore also fulfil an important task.

As a result, these are Internet in general and various Social media in particular to the Enemy image of leading politicians and Media groups have become. For the established, large media companies, the digital media not only represent economic competition, but also incalculable competition in terms of content presentation and opinion-forming. The "old media" and the leading elites (of the Western world), who are often closely associated with them, are no longer getting through to a large number of citizens with their widespread dogmas and narratives in the way they used to. In many areas, the majority no longer follow them and increasingly distrust the previously dominant media.

What is labelled a conspiracy theory today?

Conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy narrators" as well as "aluminium hat wearers" and so on are people who hold views that clearly contradict the explanations, representations and dogmas of the Western ruling elites and contradict their explanatory patterns. (The definition of the increasingly controversial term "elite" will not be discussed here). This will initially be considered irrespective of whether this view or representation is factual, logical, comprehensible and source-based or whether it is confused, irrational, contradictory and cannot be factually substantiated.

Views or even detailed, factual treatises that contradict the ruling elites and their spokespeople or reveal completely different backgrounds and contexts are labelled as conspiracy theories, conspiracy narratives or conspiracy myths ("disinformation", "hate speech"...) and so on. It does not matter how detailed, verifiable and well-founded this position is put forward.

For many of these controversial topics, which are dismissed by the Western media or leading politicians as conspiracy narratives, there are books with references and a systematic structure that meet scientific standards or have been written by experts. Detailed treatises in digital media, magazines, books and lectures are also increasingly being labelled with derogatory terms.
These are mostly topics from politics, society, power and domination structures and the economy. This form of marginalisation promotes the often lamented division of society.

In the case of the corona pandemic and the controversy surrounding vaccination, it is clear that, in a similar way, scientific observations and research are declared to be "correct" and "recognised" science on the one hand, while other professionally qualified scientific knowledge and explanations are dismissed as false, "fake news" or "conspiracy theory" and scientists are discredited in this way. It is even censored or criminalised. We are familiar with similar behaviour in the debate about climate change and its causes. An open approach to science and freedom of research looks different. Not to mention freedom of opinion or freedom of information. The systematic denigration of statements and people using such terms is in stark contrast to constitutional fundamental rights - indeed, it contradicts the principles of the rule of law.

Today, "conspiracy theory" is used almost exclusively as a pejorative term and verbal defence against oppositional views and publications. And as I said, even dissenting findings or explanations in specialised scientific fields can be seen as opposition. In the so-called Western world, we are experiencing less and less of an objective debate with opposition; instead, opposition is met with the will to destroy.

In this way, leading elites and their mouthpieces want to delegitimise and denigrate criticism of themselves in order to avoid a serious, substantive debate. It is naturally assumed that what is labelled a conspiracy theory has no truth content whatsoever and is to be regarded as fundamentally false.

The censorship scissors for thoughts and topics must be implanted in people's minds. This is what "fighting words" are for.
From time to time, the term "alternative truth" is used to dismiss and discredit views or reasoned representations.
These attributions, particularly in Germany, have been supplemented for several years by the discussion about "fake news", "hate speech" and "disinformation", whereby these terms are mixed together at will. Anything that contradicts the world view conveyed by state-run public media and leading party politicians is condemned and devalued. In addition, there are new laws from the EU and the state that serve as measures against the expression of opinions. State-organised and financed censorship forces are scouring certain social media. However, if you look at what is declared as "hate speech", for example, you realise that in many cases it is not really about hate messages, but about oppositional criticism or expressions of opinion that are displeasing to leading politicians and the media close to them.

"They don't ban hate speech. They ban the speech they hate."

• Author not known. This quote, which probably originates from a US Twitter comment, is often attributed to Elon Musk. Musk does not distance himself from the content of the statement, but is not the author. The original is said to read: "They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate."

Another fighting term, mainly in Germany, has long been "right-wing" and various associations with it. For decades, everything that can be remotely described as politically right-wing has been deliberately demonised.

In the same breath, the outlawed conspiracy narrative (in Germany) is now often specifically labelled as "right-wing" or "right-wing extremist" at the same time. "Right-wing conspiracy theory" is now the oft-repeated term. Whether people with a right-wing political orientation are actually behind certain opinions or whether a right-wing orientation is assumed is recognisably irrelevant(1).
Two words declared to be negative are merged into one term. And makes it seem superfluous to deal objectively with content and arguments.

As opposition and dissent to the mainstream in politics and the media has increasingly been labelled as "right-wing" or "extreme right-wing" and even indiscriminately as "Nazi" in recent years, the aim is to create a subtle mental link between the "right-wing", which has been demonised for decades, and the "conspiracy believers". This easy-to-see-through method of denigration and marginalisation really does catch on with a large number of unsuspecting citizens.

(1) For example, countless demonstrations against the CORONA measures took place in Germany in 2020 and 2021. These protective measures were seen by many citizens as well as lawyers, doctors and other experts as a disproportionate restriction of fundamental rights. A colourful mixture of people took part in these demonstrations, as I was able to see for myself in several cases. Conversations with participants have clearly shown that this is not about "right" or "left", but about the cause itself - about resistance to new laws and government measures that undermine fundamental rights. Here, people demonstrated side by side regardless of their political orientation. Citizens with different voting behaviour and many who were previously apolitical have come together. The media and leading German politicians generalised that these demonstrators were right-wing and against the state.

What favours the emergence of conspiracy theories

When so-called conspiracy theories arise, the primary cause is deep-seated mistrust. Mistrust of politics, state institutions, the media and various lobby groups is also fuelled by such lies, which have a lasting effect over generations. Constructing conspiracy lies has always been a means of US policy, especially in foreign and war policy. This will be discussed in detail in Part 2 of this paper. Originally, this did not come from the population, but was devised and spread by governments, state agencies or large media organisations.

An increasingly growing proportion of the US population is no longer prepared to accept emotionalised propaganda lies from its government apparatus unquestioningly. What applies to US citizens in this respect is increasingly true for people in almost all countries of the Western world: a great many people trust the US government, presidents, government advisors, US intelligence agencies, think tanks and large corporations with everything, but little that is good. Instead, they are associated with lies, deviousness, war, destruction, arbitrariness, cold-heartedness and calculation, contempt for humanity and moral depravity.
These harsh but now widespread views of the USA and its leadership are the result of previous actions.
It is therefore hardly surprising that many of the various "conspiracy theories" and expressions of mistrust circulating around the world are linked to the USA and its ruling elites.

For some years now, there has been a loss of trust and rejection not only towards the leadership of the USA. In almost all Western countries, mistrust and rejection of their leadership elites is on the rise. This has already been explained here using Germany as an example. This is being countered with further restrictions on critical citizens. Social division is also increasing.

Some examples should in part 2explain in a comprehensible way how mistrust has arisen and why it is apparently on the rise.

Part 3 will also be online shortly.

Der Beitrag „Kampfbegriffe gegen die Opposition“ – Teil 1 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.