by RAELLE KAIA
WHENEVER the corporate media and government agree something is true, there can now be no possibility that their assertion is false. Any insistence to the contrary is automatically defined as a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps the best definition of conspiracy theory I have ever heard comes courtesy of Mark Crispin Miller, who describes it as something that “if true, you couldn’t handle it”.
The reason you cannot handle it is because it is too dispiriting for most of us to integrate. If true, it means that the government and the corporate press have been colluding together against the public interest on a number of issues for a very long time. This represents a heavy psychological burden.
As such, the spell words of conspiracy theory provide us with convenient encouragement to remain comfortably tucked into the version of reality constructed for us by the official narrative.
As with the spell words of anti- vaxxer and extremist, we are provided with instructions to isolate ourselves from anyone labelled as a conspiracy theorist and anything labelled as a conspiracy theory.
Consequently, the very concept of ‘conspiracy theory’ provides the government and the financial interests that control the corporate media free license to weave reality into any desired shape.
Prior to the promulgation of this spell, the proper description for what is now called ‘conspiracy theory’ would have been ‘investigative journalism’.
Investigative journalism seeks to uncover hidden truths and official corruption in order to expose the powerful and inform the public.
The spell power of conspiracy theory ensures that investigative journalism into certain forbidden areas will never be conducted by corporate or state actors. It will thus carry the stigma of illegitimacy or fringe ‘extremism’. This is an incredible boon to the free-handed exercise of official power in ways the public would otherwise object to.
The first word, ‘conspiracy’, evokes a mood of paranoia. It summons the image of someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, erratic and isolated, prone to delusions and unhealthy behaviour.
Imagine instead that the word ‘corruption’ were substituted for conspiracy. The paranoia dissolves away. We are all aware that corruption is real and very present, and that the rich and powerful engage in it regularly. That is how most of them got there.
The second word, ‘theory’, carries the implicit assumption that the accusation is speculative and has not been proven. Since a conspiracy theory is defined by governmental and mass media agreement as untrue, a circular, self-reifying loop is created.
As long as both the government and the corporate press both agree that something is not true, it is automatically confined to the realm of speculation as a matter of definition.
No amount of evidence or reasoning can ever shift the accusation from the realm of theory to the realm of fact, regardless of how strong the evidence and reasoning may be. It is defined as non-factual by the spell word itself.
As with the previously mentioned spell words, the ability to apply the label ‘conspiracy theory’ is wielded by the media figures and public officials who hold societal power.
Imagine instead that the word ‘theory’ was replaced by the word ‘investigation’. The connotation shifts immediately. A theory is something a cranky recluse concocts from his armchair at home, letting the imagination run wild. An investigation is a sober analysis of facts and evidence that seeks to uncover a hidden truth.
Now put them together, ‘conspiracy theory’ becomes ‘corruption investigation’.
Imagine your public officials or media personalities deriding something as a corruption investigation. “There are wild and rampant corruption investigations going around. We need to put a stop to these reckless and dangerous corruption investigations”.
Or imagine replacing the predictable denouncements of someone as a conspiracy theorist with the term corruption investigator: “Don’t talk to me about the JFK assassination or 9/11. You’re just a corruption investigator”. In the absence of the spell that adheres to the term ‘conspiracy theorist’, public perception would be very different.
We would have a plethora of corruption investigations on our hands, conducted by a growing number of corruption investigators.
Rather than nervously laughing and dismissing these investigations out of hand and saying things like, “I don’t believe in corruption investigations”, we would probably start demanding official inquiries, hearings, and prosecutions, and we would also insist that our corporate news outlets conduct honest investigations into these matters themselves. The power of spell words cannot be underestimated.
The kerosene king had started out selling counterfeit snake oil, but once the technology of cracking petroleum arrived, the ingenuity of his fellow Germans led to petrochemical-based pharmaceuticals.
Rockefeller became the biggest name in U.S. pharmaceuticals by using the power of his endowments to gain control of medical schools. He promptly banned traditional medicine. Simultaneously he became a force in the media.
It is not just a curious parallel that today we see Big Pharma, the medical profession and the corporate media in cahoots - they are largely the same interests.
The vast profits to be made set off a rivalry between the U.S. and Britain on the one hand, and Germany on the other. That quest for wealth was to shape the 20th century.
Government, for all its big budgets and burden on taxpayers, cannot compete with private foundations. These are the playthings of families and wealthy individuals.
Through think tanks, the big four auditors and their consultancies, and the banks and private equity, corporate forces make government policy.
Examples include George Soros’s well documented and lavish funding of selected U.S. district attorneys, having realised how the political machine - and electoral process - can be controlled through the judicial system.
There is Bill Gates’s development of Common Core and successful effort through the teachers’ unions, academics and politicians to foist it upon the U.S.
The powerful influence of billionaire families like the Pritzkers set the gender debate, as explored by Jennifer Bilek.
It goes much deeper than the revolving door between government and the private sector. Catherine