Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jamie Bartlett

GET UPDATES FROM Jamie Bartlett

The Dangers of Conspiracy Theories

Posted: 24/09/11 01:00 BST

This weekend, I'm speaking at an event about conspiracy theories at Conway Hall. There are still millions of people who believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that 9/11 was an 'inside job', committed by the US government to justify imperialist expansionism.

You have probably met one of these 'Truthers' at one point or another. I've met several. Last year, I released a paper about the dangers of conspiracy theories called The Power of Unreason. Within hours, the online conspiracy community launched a campaign to discredit the work. On hundreds of conspiracsts blogs, the paper was presented in an exaggerated, distorted, inaccurate way. Our recommendation to teach critical thinking in schools became 'pushing propaganda on our children'. The key finding that terrorist organizations often use conspiracy theories as part of their propaganda become 'Demos accuses the 9/11 Truth Movement as [sic] being terrorists'.

Then it lurched into the thickets. Unfortunately for us, the Greek letter theta takes the place of the 'o' in the Demos logo. For some of the conspiracy theorists, this was the secret 'eye' of the Illuminati, of which Demos was clearly a part (I've never understood why such a secret organization would have such an overt symbol). As an author, I was accused of being part of the conspiracy itself: at best unknowing, naïve and myopic, at worst a disinformation specialist or government agent openly supporting state-terrorism.

It is of course important that citizens do not take the word of our governments at face value. They often lie and cheat and cover things up. But it is a very selective application of epistemological standards that marks the 9/11 Truthers. When critiquing 'official' stories, they demand impossibly exacting standards of verification - every minor anomaly is a smoking gun. Simultaneously, they will accept the most implausible set of absurdities and logicial fallacies, if it helps weave a counter-narrative.

Some Truthers will be attending this weekend's event, and there is what one might consider a conspiracy theorist speaking on the panel. It should be interesting and possibly heated, especially if any of them think I work for Mossad. But I think the high watermark of the 9-11 Truth Movement has passed. Most of their claims have been debunked, and I sense the movement is losing momentum. But there does remain a foul smelling legacy. In some communities of young people I've worked in, a vague, ill-informed conspiratorial view of the world is almost omnipresent - that the US/UK/Israeli government committed the 9/11 attacks is almost a truism. The Truthers are partly responsible for that. When reasonable skepticism tips into unthinking, blanket cynicism it can drag people into a cul-de-sac of pointless despair and helplessness, where nothing can ever change because mighty powers are ranged against you. The worst bit is that time and energy that could be spent looking into real conspiracies - and there are plenty of them - is sucked into a black hole of nonsense, and utterly wasted.

 

Follow Jamie Bartlett on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JamieJBartlett

This weekend, I'm speaking at an event about conspiracy theories at Conway Hall. There are still millions of people who believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that 9/11 was an 'inside...
This weekend, I'm speaking at an event about conspiracy theories at Conway Hall. There are still millions of people who believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that 9/11 was an 'inside...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
DwayneDuggerII
Musician/Writer
01:24 AM on 10/05/2011
Yes, there are those who claim wild stories, but underneath it, are actually truth...the people just want the truth
DwayneDuggerII
Musician/Writer
01:22 AM on 10/05/2011
ok you have those who deal with conspiracy THEORY and those with conspiracy FACT...I deal with the latter...my issue with the 9/11 commission is that they blatantly disregard eye witness accounts that contradict official reports. Many scientists, engineers say, according to the evidence, those towers fell by controlled demolition, and not by the impact of airplanes and melted steel. 9//11 truthers just want the facts to accurately investigated, and not spoon fed non sense. There are some alarming facts that leads one to question....no black boxes from the airplanes found...WTC 7 fell without impact of an plane, only had small fires, no F-16's scrambled at first notice...etc..
11:22 AM on 09/30/2011
9/30/11.

I just heard this propagandist Jamie Bartlett deliver YET ANOTHER effort on BBC World Service show World Update (around 10:30 AM BST) this week. Note the Sept 24, 2011 date on this post above. The unscholarly tripe that that this guy has been delivering for the past week on various BBC shows, both radio and broadcast, is entirely in keeping with the Cass Sunstein US government program (as stated by Sunstein's department) to get people to accept only the government view of events.

From one BBC link. Looks like the 16-year-old kid is thinking and Bartlett is claiming she isn't:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15097139
--------------------
"Why should we trust the government when everything that is being broadcast on TV could be misleading us as well...what are we supposed to believe?" said Reema Begum, 16.

A tough question, and not one that anyone in the classroom could answer completely.

"A lot of the information on the internet is radical historical revisionism," said Jamie Bartlett.

"Without a common base of history that we all understand and accept and agree upon it's very hard for people to have a shared understanding of where we are now."
-----------------

RE-READ THE RIDICULOUSNESS OF BARTLETT'S STATEMENT.
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
03:39 PM on 09/25/2011
"Never attribute to coincidence that which can be fully explained by conspiracy."
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
05:23 PM on 09/24/2011
Now I see why there are only three comments all supporting your opinion.
10:51 AM on 09/24/2011
I always thought the name 'Truther' was particularly ironic, given that these sad people peddle so many un-truths, half-truths and outright fictions. Anyway, good article - and good luck fending off the inevitable backlash on this comments thread.
05:17 AM on 09/24/2011
(part 2) Do us all a favor, source your claim -- back it up with valid debunking. No not hologram airplane theories, but the solid ones, like the physics pointed out in the videos by 'David Chandler' and the identification of explosive dust by several teams (look up Danish television broadcast of this. you know NBC won't touch this!) D. Chandler has some flawed arguments, but some seem to point out things that are very clear. What is the point of your existence if the information you output is the same as this unreasoned 'common knowledge' input you and everyone receives and believes because it is not troubling? Do a real investigation and get back to us. This is all very interesting to me, as I did not really think about it until a month ago, and being a physics major I had good ideas about how to verify these sorts of things with reliable and time-tested principles. It actually seems to me that the king has no cloths. Many of you journalists are in love with your writing and word-weaving and think of this as 'being highly analytical' when it is tragically clear this is quite far from the case.
05:16 AM on 09/24/2011
How did you reach your certainty about the 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary'? From my investigation, many 'truther' theories are either completely absurd or point things out that could be explained away by a consideration that is in line with the received view of events. But it seems to me there are other bits of physical data and a large testimony about these bits of data that is in no way compatible with the received view and further points the the use of explosives. How has the thermite debate been debunked? From what I have found, a thermetic substance has been verified several times over by different substance identification labs using different samples. The paint argument is completely stupid, as it only points out the substance was 'laminar' or layered and that rust was present in the sample. Has there been a round of official investigations to properly refute these studies by experts? I have looked but have not found anything adequate as an actual debunking. There seem to me to also be strange and unexplained things about the physics of the buildings falling that are completley overlooked by the NIST reports. Have you even taken the time to look into this, or are you just huffing and puffing based upon the 'common knowledge' that all of you 'information elites' pass around because you all 'just get it'?
11:27 AM on 09/26/2011
Google: George Washington bridge 911 - if you want to read about something really strange, so strange in fact that hardly anyone has heard of it(including the 911 commission)...

This article is clearly the worst sort of hack journalism where 'Truthers' are lumped into a category - if the 'journalist' did any research he would discover that the 'Truthers' are as varied in their views as they are in their support of each others take on this episode...