In the O.P. of the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=174539&mesg_id=174539">Lyndon LaRouche: "fascist political movement with echoes of neonazi ideology", boloboffin quotes the article
http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/">ZOG Ate My Brains: Conspiracy theories about Jews abound. Chip Berlet unpacks their appeal. That article begins by defining "conspiracy theories" as follows:
The idea that a secret group of powerful people is conspiring to control world events is centuries old, and it is seeing a troubling resurgence on the political Left. Unlike most progressive theories about political power that stress systemic, institutional or structural analyses, conspiracy theories claim a handful of sinister plotters are mucking things up.
The above is pretty much the same as Berlet's definition of "conspiracism" that I discussed earlier, and which I'll refer to as "conspiracism im the strict sense." Berlet then adds, "This often devolves into charges that ‘The Jews’ are behind some sinister plan for global subversion."
But then later he claims the following to be the essence of what he calls "destructive conspiracy theories":
The specific allegations change based on time and place, but the basic elements of destructive conspiracy theories remain the same:
Dualistic division
The world is divided into a good ‘Us’ and a bad ‘Them’.
Demonizing rhetoric
Our opponents are evil and subversive... maybe subhuman.
Targeting scapegoats
‘They’ are causing all our troubles – we are blameless.
Apocalyptic timetable
Time is running out and we must act immediately to stave off a cataclysmic event.
In fact, even Berlet himself is unable to avoid the above traits of "destructive conspiracy theory.". The article
http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/">Zog Ate My Brains itself exemplifies the very pattern it's complaining about here. It can be summed up as follows:
- Dualistic division: The political world is divided between progressives and right wingers. Progressive political movements like the anti-war movement have been infiltrated and subverted by right-wingers with their evil conspiracy theories.
- Demonizing rhetoric: Those evil conspiracy theories almost always lead to anti-semitism!
- Targeting scapegoats: We must purge those evil conspiracy theorists from our progressive progressive movements, ior they'll destroy our movements from within!
To be fair, the article doesn't contain an explicit timetable, but the following is implied:
- Apocalyptic timetable: We must purge those evil conspiracy theorists ASAP, or our progressive political movements will die of despair and bigotry!
The above four traits of "destructive conspiracy theory" are characteristic of most war propaganda.
They are also typical of the propaganda of probably
all political movements whatsoever, whether left-wing, right-wing, or anything in-between. Has anyone here ever received a political fund-raising letter, for any political cause whatsoever, which did
not have the above four traits, to at least some degree?
Below, for example, are some ideas that probably almost all of us here would agree with, except perhaps for some minor nit-picking:
- Dualistic division: Progressives believe that society as a whole should take some responsibility for human well-being, whereas right-wingers favor a dog-eat-dog economic system
- Demonizing rhetoric: The Bush administration is evil and barbaric. They've even promoted torture! And, of course, they could only be expected to let lots of people die in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Obviously they'd rather spend our tax dollars on waging an unprovoked aggressive war.
- Targeting scapegoats: These days, Republicans are the party of unprovoked aggressive war. And they're happy to drive up the national debt by sending us off to endless war. "Fiscal conservativism" just means not spending money on anything that would actually benefit society. They'll bankrupt this country completely if we let them.
- Apocalyptic timetable: We absolutely must elect a Democratic President this fall. If we allow a Republican to be elected, he'll drag us into war with Iran and may totally bankrupt the U.S.A.!
Any complaints about the above? (Yeah, I know
- my wording isn't snappy enough. I'm sure someone here can write a catchier version of the above.)
Back to Berlet's article. He writes:
Conspiracy theory is sometimes called conspiracism. Michael Barkun, author of A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, contends that conspiracism attracts people because conspiracy theorists ‘claim to explain what others can’t. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.’ There is an appealing simplicity in dividing the world sharply into good and bad and tracing ‘all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents’.
That's probably true of "conspiracism" in the strict sense of the term: the worldview in which
all (or nearly all) political, social, and economic problems are blamed on an ongoing, concerted plot by some secret, world-micromanaging group such as "the Illuminati," or the "Elders of Zion," or Larouche's "British banking interests," or whatever.
But then:
Barkun notes that ‘conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others’. For conspiracists, ‘the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions’
It seems to me that people of
every political persuasion consider themselves to be more enlightened than everyone else. For example, anti-"conspiracists" such as Chip Berlet get to look down on the brainwashed herd of populist "conspiracists."
Conspiracism often gains a mass following in times of social, cultural, economic, or political stress. Immigration, demands for racial or gender equality, gay rights, power struggles between nations, and war can all can be viewed through a conspiracist lens. Conspiracism started as a way to defend the status quo, but it spawned a flipside where the conspiracy is perceived as controlling the government. This was a central motif of the 1950s ‘Red Scare’ when fears of global communist subversion were a common conspiracist script.
Agreed that the more fanatical forms of anti-Communism were indeed "conspiracist" in the strict sense, blaming all manner of social ills on alleged Communist infiltration and subversion. I remember
None Dare Call It Treason, for example.
But then:
Today, Arabs and Muslims are portrayed in a similar demonizing way as conspiring against Western culture.
Hmmm. Maybe I just haven't yet read enough right wing propaganda, but I don't recall coming across any alleged conspiracy which would be to Muslims as the alleged "Elders of Zion" are to Jews. Nor do I recall coming across an anti-Muslim near-equivalent of Henry Ford's
The International Jew. Certainly there has been plenty of bigotry against Muslims. I've run into some extremely paranoid fear-mongering against Muslims (e.g. the crusade against Debbie Almontaser). I've also run into some very obnoxious polarizing rhetoric, such as referring to all non-Muslim defenders of the civil rights of Muslims as "dhimmis" (implying subservience to the Muslims). And I've also come across plenty of racism against Arabs, e.g. referring to Palestinians as "animals." But I haven't yet run into any anti-Arab or anti-Muslim polemics that could be called "conspiracist" in the strict sense.
Of course, there have been various official "conspiracy theories" such as those linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. But even those are not "conspiracism" in the strict sense, because neither Al Qaeda nor Saddam Hussein has ever (as far as I'm aware) been alleged to control the world.
If anyone here knows of any such truly "conspiracist" (in the strict sense) anti-Muslim or anti-Arab propaganda, I would appreciate it very much if someone could PM me a link (since posting said link here in the forum would be against the rules).
Sadly, as tensions in the Middle East have boiled over, an increasing number of Arabs and Muslims have grabbed onto antisemitic conspiracy theories to explain devastating struggles over land and power. This is evidenced by the popularity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the region where they have been repackaged into television series broadcast from Lebanon and Egypt.
That is certainly true, alas.
Antisemitic conspiracism is aggressively peddled to progressives by several rightwing groups including the international network run by Lyndon LaRouche, a frequently unsuccessful US presidential candidate. While LaRouche rhetoric can seem bonkers, his followers are successful in recruiting students on college campuses and in networking with some Black Nationalist groups. Sometimes Arab publications circulate articles from LaRouche group analysts. When LaRouche publications condemn the neoconservative policy advisers to President Bush as the ‘Children of Satan’, it echoes historic antisemitic rhetoric about evil Jewish conspiracies tracing back to medieval Europe.
That is true.
Why would progressives embrace conspiracism? In the 1980s, isolationists on the Right, and anti-war activists on the Left grew suspicious of President Ronald Reagan’s support for covert action overseas and political repression at home. As they interacted, some progressive groups began circulating allegations about ‘Secret Teams’, ‘Shadow Governments’, or ‘The Octopus’, that echoed historic antisemitic conspiracy theories found in rightwing publications. With the collapse of communism in Europe many rightists shifted scapegoats to claim a New World Order conspiracy was manipulating the US Government. Again, some leftists adapted this rhetoric.
Here things get ambiguous. Talk of "secret teams" or "shadow governments" may or may not be "conspiracist" in the strict sense, depending on exactly what one means by those terms and how one views them. However, to the extent that some people may find these terms offensive because of a history of bigoted use, I agree that it would be advisable to use other terminology, at the very least.
It is true that, with the end of the Cold War, a significant minority of political conservatives became anti-war and anti-imperialist and, as a result, formed (or tried to form) alliances with progressives on commen issues, resulting in some mutual influences.
During the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists spoke of a ‘Jewish Lobby’ in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism.1
‘When we blame US foreign policy on Israel or some Jewish cabal,’ it ‘takes the heat off those who are the real decision makers,’ says Penny Rosenwasser, a board member of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace. ‘We need to aim our criticism at the proper targets. US foreign policy is influenced more by corporate interests, the Christian Right and the arms manufacturers than by the Israeli Government.’ Rosenwasser points out that it is US foreign policy that needs to be challenged: ‘Blaming scapegoats diverts us from our work for human rights and justice.’ She sees that some people ‘blur the distinction between the Jewish people and the policies of the Israeli Government’. That’s what happens with phrases like ‘the Jewish Lobby’ where the work of Jews seeking justice for Palestinians is simply erased.
That is certainly true.
Berlet then devotes a paragraph to the rumor about the 4,000 Jews who were supposedly warned to stay home on 9/11.
Out on the furthest conspiracist limb are race hate groups and neo-Nazis who are obsessed with the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) – an idea that is the modern incarnation of the infamous Protocols.
But such ideas are by no means the preserve of the extremist fringe. Brasher says: ‘We tend to look at apocalyptic and conspiracist belief and laugh it off and push it aside. Yet in many ways it is pervasive. I came back to visit the United States after the attacks on 9/11 and was amazed to see apocalyptic rhetoric being spun out by elected officials and people on the Right and Left.’
There are powerful forces that shape our reality. Conspiracies do take place. How we approach the workings of élite groups and individuals, however, is crucial if we are to avoid traversing down the conspiracists’ path.
G William Domhoff, author of several books on how powerful élites try to shape political and economic policies, distinguishes his techniques for researching power structures from those used by conspiracists. Domhoff complains: ‘There is no falsifying a conspiracy theory. Its proponents always find a way to claim the élite really won, even though everyday people stop some things, or win some battles.’ Author Holly Sklar agrees: ‘When I write about influential élite planning groups such as the Trilateral Commission, I don’t portray them as omnipotent puppet masters manipulating politicians and policies in a vast conspiracy."
A valid distinction. I agree with the desire to avoid "conspiracism" in the strict sense. But then Holly Sklar says:
When progressives grab on to conspiracy theories it undermines effective strategic analysis, planning and action.
Depends how broadly or how narrowly she is using the term "conspiracy theory" here.
Unfortunately, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used to stigmatize any and all as-yet-unproven worries about possible government wrongdoing. Therefore, an overly broad
aversion to "conspiracy theory" can do even more to "undermine effective strategic analysis, planning and action," at least regarding any call for government accountability.
Even when conspiracy theorists proclaim they are not targeting Jews, conspiracism creates a milieu in which antisemitism can flourish. Many progressives, conservatives, New Agers – even UFO groups – have spoken out against antisemitic conspiracy theories. And an increasing number of activists suggest that conspiracism itself needs to be opposed, especially on the political Left. Lee Quinby, author of Anti-Apocalypse, complains that ‘Progressive thought falters under the weight of apocalyptic and conspiratorial thinking,’ because ‘disagreement and dissent are disallowed, democratic debate is precluded, and differences of opinion are penalized.’ Domhoff agrees: ‘Conspiracism is a disaster for progressive people because it leads them into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators.’
I would agree with this if I could be confident that the above-quoted people were speaking only of "conspiracism" in the strict sense. Alas, people with a bug up their ass about "conspiracism" rarely confine their concerns to "conspiracism" in the strict sense. Instead they prefer to use the term "conspiracism" to stigmatize serious and specific calls for government accountability.
I'll say more later about the remainder of Berlet's article.