Elite propaganda

Scholars such as Lance DeHaven-Smith and Mark Fenster have advanced this field of study by revealing the ways in which valid questions about activities of the power elites in the US have been abrogated by simply applying the term ‘conspiracy theory.’ The pejorative use of the term dates back to a CIA memorandum from 1967 that was covertly presented to media moguls and influential political figures in order to help counteract growing negative reaction to the now totally discredited Warren Commission Report.

Since that time, particularly after the 9/11 attacks, the mere application of the term has been used to belittle and ridicule any argument being put forth which questioned the “official” story. DeHaven-Smith points out that the idea of conspiracies in high places was not at all foreign to the instigators of the Revolutionary War, or to those who drafted The Constitution. In fact, he stresses, the US Constitution was designed with the expectation that public officials are likely to conspire to abuse their powers, and thereby undermine popular control of government. Many colonists brought with them a deep fear of official conspiracies, treason, and corruption. Dr. DeHaven-Smith and other scholars emphasize the importance of discerning clear patterns of likely conspiracies, such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the murder of his brother Robert five years later.

Mark Fenster challenges the dominant academic and popular approach to conspiracy theories, which views cynics like Richard Belzer and Alex Jones as a paranoid, extremist expression of marginal groups and individuals who pathologically challenge the basic assumptions of American history, and the pluralistic political system of the United States.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s five-filter model can also be extended to the AlterNet articles, as I intend to demonstrate. Oliver Boyd-Barrett from Cal Poly Pomona includes the “buying out” of journalists or their publications by intelligence agencies of the US government and related special interest organizations as an important factor in the dissemination of propaganda.

The normative power of the conspiracy theory label comes in part from the principle in the American system of justice in which suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty; however the presumption of innocence was never intended to outlaw suspicions. Rather, it calls for valid suspicions to be tested with thorough and fair investigations grounded by procedural rules for procuring and presenting evidence.

In contrast, the conspiracy theory label is applied not to categorize a position that will actually be considered, but to shut down argumentation before it even begins. As a practical matter, the label condemns as hysterical and pernicious almost all speculations about the possible complicity of political elites in suspicions events. Given that the ruling elite are themselves the targets of assassination plots, illegal surveillance and other conspiracies by their political opponents, their blanket hostility to conspiracy theories seems irrational because it encourages them to dismiss real dangers and deny reasonable concerns as well. It also silences those who believe they have been victims.

President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address on January 17, 1961 that military leaders and armament manufacturers had become a “military-industrial complex” capable of influencing the entire direction of American government. Since Eisenhower’s day, the military-industrial complex has expanded to outrageous proportions while other, related complexes have also formed. Media, energy, finance, and pharmaceutical cartels have grown in influence not simply because of their vast economic assets but also because of their strategic importance to the agenda of globalization. The superficial character of ‘alternative media’ as a medium for objective public discourse is fairly evident.

But does any of this rampant conspiracy-stoking really matter? What is the harm to society? Elias quotes Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, who worries about “the evil forces, shadow government” genre of conspiracy hyping, without solid facts, that people like Belzer and Jones supposedly engage in. “It has a terrible impact on our democratic system, poisoning any kind of reasoned democratic discourse,” Shermer contends. “It feeds into paranoia that makes you give up, since you can’t have any effect, and not want to participate in public life, government or politics,” he says.

While this may be true, leadership failures which have not been fully investigated include numerous opportunistic responses by political elites to terrorist threats (9/11), exaggerated fears of terrorist attacks (Boston Marathon), and politicization of intelligence gathering to support ideological positions. Case in point: Edward Snowden’s recent revelations regarding the NSA.

The rapid militarization of local police is now indicative of an emerging ethos of systemic disturbances with the potential to cascade rapidly into escalating and reciprocal state crises. Research indicates that the first wave of the Occupy movement of 2011 and the state’s heavy-handed reaction to that popular movement is simply a harbinger of increasing collaboration between local police and federal authorities. Certainly, recent trends suggest that increasing state terrorism and domestic surveillance are in store for humanity.

And of course, when all else fails, the gatekeepers can always play the “anti-Semite” card, even though Belzer is himself Jewish. According to Elias, Belzer and Wayne’s publisher, Skyhorse Publishing, is allowing the American Free Press, “an anti-Semitic periodical run by long-time Holocaust denier Willis Carto” to sell both Hit List and Dead Wrong to its audiences. This sort of implied connection to anti-Semitism is yet another classic propaganda tactic.

However one chooses to view Belzer’s theories and opinions, there’s no doubt that because of his status as a celebrity, he has the power to influence people. The actor is aware of this himself. “Because I’m famous I can put this book out and people will read it that wouldn’t if my name wasn’t on it,” he recently acknowledged on the Alex Jones show. “I’m cashing in on my celebrity – for unselfish reasons, I hope.” Elias highlights this comment as proof that his motives are insincere. Is she really trying to condemn Belzer for being a capitalist? Hypocrisy is a primary tool for debunking conspiracy theories.

Conclusion

As engaged, concerned citizens, we must remain skeptical of everything we are told; especially by the government and its representatives in media. Academics and scholars such as Lance DeHaven-Smith and Mark Fenster are some of the few remaining independent voices left who are able to effectively counter the dominant narrative. History has shown that constant, unflinching vigilance is the only way to preserve our failing democracy.

I have focused on the techniques, keywords, and consistent themes endorsed by the institutions that legitimize the prevailing political order. Specifically, I have examined the ‘conspiracy theory’ label, which is routinely used to marginalize any opinions which don’t follow accepted norms.

The alternative media’s lock-step condemnation of people who dare to publically question the ‘official story’ such as Richard Belzer and Alex Jones, while ostensibly supporting whistle-blowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning is dubious and highly questionable, to say the least.

Within the contrasting theories regarding the Truth derived from a belief in conspiracy theories, the MSM – as the voice of the global elite – embraces the weakest of these: the ‘consensus’ theory. Anything which deviates from this construct is labeled ‘alternative’ media. Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon by the dominant group. Instead, both MSM and alternative media promote what DeHaven-Smith refers to as ‘coincidence’ theory: a willfully ignorant paradigm which suggests that all of these earth shattering historical events are simply the random acts of crazed loners. The primary theory employed by the alternative press is empirical truth. If MSM is Goliath, the alternative press is David. Playing the underdog in this dichotomy, it is incumbent upon the alternative press to provide this form of Truth, in direct contravention to the consensus theory. Sadly, this is not the case.

An effective alternative press should use objective analysis to deconstruct the truth based on empirical evidence – because there is no other form of truth as powerful. Again, this is not happening, and it will not happen under the current political regime.

The Internet has mutated beyond the control of the state, having grown into a Truth-spewing beast which they can no longer contain, short of complete destruction. This is not out of the realm of reason, when one considers the words of Joseph Goebbels: “(A) lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie.” The Internet is the primary means of disseminating the Truth, therefore it is a mortal enemy of the state.

Anyone – especially public figures – who dare to deviate from conventional wisdom and assert that the leaders of our government might be capable of high crimes against democracy risks being branded a ‘conspiracy nut’ or worse: the implied threat of being marginalized by in media and politically ostracized. This appears to be part of a carefully formulated plan.

Works cited

Boyd-Barrett, Oliver. “Judith Miller, the New York Times, and the Propaganda Model.” Journalism Studies. 5.4 (2004): 435-449. Print.

DeHaven-Smith, L. (2014). Conspiracy theory in America.

DeHaven-Smith, L. “When Political Crimes Are Inside Jobs: Detecting State Crimes against Democracy.” Administrative Theory & Praxis. 28.3 (2006): 330-355. Print.

DeHaven-Smith, L., and Matthew Witt. “Preventing State Crimes against Democracy.” Administration & Society. 41.5 (2009): 527-550. Print.

Elias, Marilyn. “Law and Order’ Star’s Dangerous Dalliance with Some of the Most Paranoid Conspiracy Theories in America.” AlterNet mag., 23 April, 2011. Web. 14 March 2014.

Fenster, Mark. Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Print.

Goodnight, G T, and John Poulakos. “Conspiracy Rhetoric: from Pragmatism to Fantasy in Public Discourse.” Western Journal of Speech Communication. 45.4 (1981): 299-316. Print.

Jacobs, Tom. “One Surprising Reason People May Believe Bizarre Conspiracy Theories.” AlterNet mag., 23 April, 2011. Web. 30 March 2014.

Keeley, Brian L. “Of Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Philosophy. 96.3 (1999): 109-126. Print.

Mullen, Andrew, and Jeffery Klaehn. “The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model: a Critical Approach to Analysing Mass Media Behaviour.” Sociology Compass. 4.4 (2010): 215-229. Print.

Sunstein, Cass R, and Adrian Vermeule. “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures*.” Journal of Political Philosophy. 17.2 (2009): 202-227. Print.

Wood, M.J, K.M Douglas, and R.M Sutton. “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3.6 (2012): 767-773. Print.