At some point over the course of my education, I must have learned about the Apollo 11 moon landing, although I have no memory of it. Admittedly, I had never been particularly interested in the moon landing until adulthood, when a friend of mine mentioned that she didn’t believe it ever happened. Suddenly I was intrigued. What reasons did people give for this skepticism, and what, if any, were the refutations of those reasons? To investigate those questions further I assume I would have to take a deep dive into the history of the Cold War, space travel, NASA, astronomy, and physics, which is a daunting prospect.
My growing awareness of ever more conspiracy theories since that conversation has led me to fantasize about an “X-Files” type of book club that would investigate those theories as a team. I compiled a random list of possible subjects; the surrounding conspiracy theories (to me) range from far-fetched to unsettling to plausible:
AIDS (cause of)
Area 51
Chemtrails
Flat earth
JFK (assassination)
Kurt Cobain (death of)
Lyme disease (origins)
MLK, Jr. (assassination)
Predictive programming (theory)
Terrain theory (vs. germ theory)
World Trade Center 7 (collapse)
In regard to the logistics of this hypothetical book club, I envision the group discussing the conventional wisdom on a subject and then selecting the strongest claims from alternative points of view. Each person in the group would then investigate the validity of one of those claims in order to bring back findings for further discussion. Related books and films would be part of this process as well as guest speakers. As context, the group could also read and discuss books with differing takes on conspiracy theories, such as Conspiracy Theory in America and Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect.
Needless to say, such a book club would provide an ideal opportunity for teaching research skills and introducing library resources, but this would not be the only benefit. In order to prevent discussions from going off the rails, the group would have to decide on ground rules for open inquiry and debate, itself a useful exercise. Through their investigations, participants would also gain a tremendous amount of knowledge in such realms as science (astronomy, atmosphere, biology, physics), history, the legal system, mass media, propaganda, psychology, and politics. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the book club would cultivate certain habits of mind, such as critical thinking and logical reasoning.
Image: Buzz Aldrin and the U.S. Flag on the Moon (9460188482).jpg/ Wikimedia Commons
One initial question to this...would it be done to debunk the conspiracy theory, or would a possibly acceptable outcome be that the consensus believe the theory and that the conventional narrative is truly a conspiracy?
It would be essential for a number, if not all, of those topics to pre-establish some of the ground rules to provide a brave space for people with views that differ from the conventional narrative (I refuse to call it wisdom for what should be obvious reasons) to be comfortable meaningfully participating. And, debate might be a less-than-ideal choice for this group. I've thought that dialogue and deliberation might be more conducive to topics that have more than two poles in their possible spectrum. In framing it as a debate...there is a 'winner' and a 'loser'. There is 'right' and 'wrong'. There is likely little understanding being developed or minds being opened. In dialogue, people listen to understand (not to rebut) and speak to be understood (not to convince).
Many of the narrative (conventional and unconventional) beliefs are too tightly held for people to be willing to have them meaningfully challenged, let alone awakened to the possibility their belief (not learning or knowledge) might be wrong.
In my preliminary plans for a similar group, these are some additional conspiracies to investigate (I don't use the CIA concept of Conspiracy Theory for the same reason that I don't refer to Conventional Narrative as Conventional Theory):
• Big Tech
• #GreatReset (globalists, elites vs. the rest of us)
• Food (GMOs, random/unplanned shortages, etc.)
• 432 Hz (vs. 440)
• Gates Foundation
• Vaccines (and autism)
• Covid-19 (many components)
• cash - digital-global currency
• riots == land grab (opportunity zones)
• divide us vs. racism
• UFOs and Area 51
• Republican v Democrat (or uniparty)
• Science v antiscience
• Mis/dis/mal information v free speech v censorship
• Eugenics
• Education and (CA)SEL
• Prison Industrial Complex
• Electromagnetic fields (and the safety of wireless/cell communication)
• Mass Formation
• Free Press
Here are a few more of the thoughts I initially jotted down (please ignore their roughness and how some of the thought overlap what I wrote previously):
Perhaps not in debate style, as that promotes “winning” as opposed to understanding. Devise a way to engage in small and large groups (of people with possibly similar or differing views). More important the people understand the complexities of these conspiracies, develop tools to investigate, and learn to share their thoughts and hear others’ in a way to promote shared understanding and not in an effort to convince.
Reason to “defend” conspiracies:
As for not defending the conspiracies, I’m concerned about simply creating an “echo chamber” if everyone is trying to debunk it. I’m curious if requiring people to try to support them would provide an even better “immune response” if they have to try to understand how someone might jump from the nuggets of agreed-upon truth (documented) to whatever conspiracy they’re proposing. This is, from my naïve perspective, even more important in communities where a percentage of the population probably already believes them. And, by rotating the support/defend (if pursuing a Debate model), people may be forced to argue for something they ridicule and against something they agree with. Good mental gymnastics.
And, why “Conspiracies” and not “Conspiracy Theories?” For the same reason we don’t call what we currently living a “Reality or Common or Dominant Theory”, though everything we believe or know is based on a theory (string theory, dark matter, economy, medicine, etc.) Again, keeping things parallel to reframe perspectives and encourage open-minds.
Finally, while I might suggest a lot of potential resources to consider for alternative views on the conventional narrative, a fun place to begin would be:
Good point about "debates"-- I was thinking more of a "dialogue." My conception is that subjects would be approached with an open mind. Some topics might lend themselves to a pretty clear-cut debunking, but for those that don't, I think the group would most likely end up with at least a few unresolved lines of inquiry but with having learned a great deal along the way.
A mystery is a great motivator. It can bring a subject that someone may otherwise not think much about to life.
Also, although I am familiar with many subjects on your list, I would like to learn more about 5G--haven't had time for that one!
There are many fruitful avenues here, including an understanding of the rhetorical uses of the term "conspiracy theory" -- and its associations with the exercise of power -- which is commonly used to dismiss any counter-history; when in fact any time police investigate a crime involving two or more suspects they must by definition theorize about a conspiracy. But it allows mainstream scholars and journalists to prescribe a narrow window of permissible thought. This is why I've been so fascinated for 30 years with the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which is ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory" but, in fact, must have actually involved a conspiracy of powerful actors in the courts of Elizabeth and James to conceal the great author's identity, and which has been remarkably successful for 400 years.
So yes, I'd be very interested in joining others in such a book club!
James Ellroy and the Public Library. His novels are all about conspiracy.
(JE's speech maybe Not safe for work- but he gave it at the Library of Congress.)
https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/james-ellroy-and-the-public-library
One initial question to this...would it be done to debunk the conspiracy theory, or would a possibly acceptable outcome be that the consensus believe the theory and that the conventional narrative is truly a conspiracy?
It would be essential for a number, if not all, of those topics to pre-establish some of the ground rules to provide a brave space for people with views that differ from the conventional narrative (I refuse to call it wisdom for what should be obvious reasons) to be comfortable meaningfully participating. And, debate might be a less-than-ideal choice for this group. I've thought that dialogue and deliberation might be more conducive to topics that have more than two poles in their possible spectrum. In framing it as a debate...there is a 'winner' and a 'loser'. There is 'right' and 'wrong'. There is likely little understanding being developed or minds being opened. In dialogue, people listen to understand (not to rebut) and speak to be understood (not to convince).
Many of the narrative (conventional and unconventional) beliefs are too tightly held for people to be willing to have them meaningfully challenged, let alone awakened to the possibility their belief (not learning or knowledge) might be wrong.
In my preliminary plans for a similar group, these are some additional conspiracies to investigate (I don't use the CIA concept of Conspiracy Theory for the same reason that I don't refer to Conventional Narrative as Conventional Theory):
• Big Tech
• #GreatReset (globalists, elites vs. the rest of us)
• Food (GMOs, random/unplanned shortages, etc.)
• 432 Hz (vs. 440)
• Gates Foundation
• Vaccines (and autism)
• Covid-19 (many components)
• cash - digital-global currency
• riots == land grab (opportunity zones)
• divide us vs. racism
• UFOs and Area 51
• Republican v Democrat (or uniparty)
• Science v antiscience
• Mis/dis/mal information v free speech v censorship
• Eugenics
• Education and (CA)SEL
• Prison Industrial Complex
• Electromagnetic fields (and the safety of wireless/cell communication)
• Mass Formation
• Free Press
Here are a few more of the thoughts I initially jotted down (please ignore their roughness and how some of the thought overlap what I wrote previously):
Perhaps not in debate style, as that promotes “winning” as opposed to understanding. Devise a way to engage in small and large groups (of people with possibly similar or differing views). More important the people understand the complexities of these conspiracies, develop tools to investigate, and learn to share their thoughts and hear others’ in a way to promote shared understanding and not in an effort to convince.
Reason to “defend” conspiracies:
As for not defending the conspiracies, I’m concerned about simply creating an “echo chamber” if everyone is trying to debunk it. I’m curious if requiring people to try to support them would provide an even better “immune response” if they have to try to understand how someone might jump from the nuggets of agreed-upon truth (documented) to whatever conspiracy they’re proposing. This is, from my naïve perspective, even more important in communities where a percentage of the population probably already believes them. And, by rotating the support/defend (if pursuing a Debate model), people may be forced to argue for something they ridicule and against something they agree with. Good mental gymnastics.
And, why “Conspiracies” and not “Conspiracy Theories?” For the same reason we don’t call what we currently living a “Reality or Common or Dominant Theory”, though everything we believe or know is based on a theory (string theory, dark matter, economy, medicine, etc.) Again, keeping things parallel to reframe perspectives and encourage open-minds.
Finally, while I might suggest a lot of potential resources to consider for alternative views on the conventional narrative, a fun place to begin would be:
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" https://afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothemoon.com/
Thanks for posting.
Good point about "debates"-- I was thinking more of a "dialogue." My conception is that subjects would be approached with an open mind. Some topics might lend themselves to a pretty clear-cut debunking, but for those that don't, I think the group would most likely end up with at least a few unresolved lines of inquiry but with having learned a great deal along the way.
A mystery is a great motivator. It can bring a subject that someone may otherwise not think much about to life.
Also, although I am familiar with many subjects on your list, I would like to learn more about 5G--haven't had time for that one!
There are many fruitful avenues here, including an understanding of the rhetorical uses of the term "conspiracy theory" -- and its associations with the exercise of power -- which is commonly used to dismiss any counter-history; when in fact any time police investigate a crime involving two or more suspects they must by definition theorize about a conspiracy. But it allows mainstream scholars and journalists to prescribe a narrow window of permissible thought. This is why I've been so fascinated for 30 years with the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which is ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory" but, in fact, must have actually involved a conspiracy of powerful actors in the courts of Elizabeth and James to conceal the great author's identity, and which has been remarkably successful for 400 years.
So yes, I'd be very interested in joining others in such a book club!
The Shakespeare authorship question is another good one!