Although conspiracy theory canards should be debated and then dismissed as the red herrings that they are, we cannot debate The World Economic Forum’s Humpty Dumptys where words means precisely what they want them to mean.
Given claims that the West’s dissidents are slaves to crackpot conspiracies, the oxymoron of conspiracy theories needs examining by first stating what a theory is, by then going on to say what a conspiracy is and by examining how such name-calling is central to NATO’s dark agenda.
With that in mind, Steven Weinberg’s The Revolution That Didn’t Happen, his primer on what constitutes a theory, should be required reading for all those university professors, who teach their nonsense subjects to prospective journalists and social media influencers. (They know who they are, even if they are unsure of their pronouns).
As well as castigating Thomas Kuhn who, Weinberg asserts, should have known better than to spread his paradigm shift nonsense to the four winds, Weinberg tells us that there are two basic classes of theories, the deterministic and the stochastic, each of which remains important to this day.
Deterministic theories include Newtonian and Christian pre-determination theories, as well as Malthusian fatalism and similar off-shoots. In such worlds, the end result can never be in doubt: drop the apple, it falls to the ground; be a good Calvinist, go to Calvinist heaven.
Speckled about them, as the ether is to Maxwell’s equations, were Catholic notions of legions of angels and demons jousting with each other to win our souls. Kings, queens and other monarchs blended neatly into this over-identified model and folk knew on which rung of Jacob’s stairway to heaven they stood both in regard to God and to the King, God’s earthly representative and enforcer.
Greek philosophers like Aristotle helped solidify this hierarchy, where women essentially got the short straw partly because, as Aristotle explained, women have less teeth than men. It was not until Spenser came along some 2000 years later that folk got the novel notion of counting how many teeth men and women actually had to determine if Aristotle’s hypothesis was correct or not. Suffice to say that Weinberg says the only use a philosopher has is to protect us from other philosophers.
There arose then a gradual trend not to accept theologies, no matter how complete, beautiful or over-identified they seemed. Folk started measuring things and, in the process, they noted anomalies, exceptions to pre-conceived notions which would eventually cause the underlying theories to be modified, if not scrapped altogether and it was confusion on this point that dragged Kuhn and oodles of Gender Studies cretins into their self-made abyss; Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers makes some important remarks on Galileo and other frauds in this regard.
It was, for example, such calculations that got most of us to accept the world is not flat and that Newtonian physics works perfectly, but only in a Newtonian world where gravity is king. Thus, although we no longer believe in Maxwell’s ether, and we now know that there is more to nature than Newton’s particles, no future discovery can ever hope to alter the fundamental logic of their work. Both Maxwellian electrodynamics and Newtonian mechanics will remain integral parts of human knowledge until the end of time.
Branching far out from physics, we can have deterministic and/or stochastic theories on just about anything tangible and measurable. Measurement through appropriate models allows us to set insurance premiums as women, on average, live longer than men, men are more risk prone, and so-called Acts of God, though rare, can be devastating and so should be insured against at an appropriate premium that can be measured. But conspiracies?
Conspiracies are a legal fact and one can hardly have a theory about a fact. Prior to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, trade unions were regarded as criminal conspiracies and the Tolpuddle Martyrs ended up being transported as convicted felons because they were part of a conspiracy, of a trade union, in other words. Guy Fawkes and his pals suffered terrible deaths because they were captured conspirators. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy condemned the Irish-American Fenian conspiracy and likewise condemned Freemasonry as a conspiracy. And then we have the persons unknown trial where Irishmen were convicted of conspiring with persons unknown at times unknown to commit crimes unknown. Though those conspiracies were all legal, historical facts, they in no way constitute building blocks for a theory on conspiracies or on anything else.
Canada’s truckers are not conspiracy theorists. They are blue collar workers, who want government conspirators to get off their backs and out of their bank accounts. French citizens protesting in solidarity with them are not conspiracy theorists, even though the French educational system devotes far too much time to philosophy. They are simply French citizens, who are carrying on the proud French tradition of protesting for their own notions of liberty, equality and fraternity. Kiwi protesters simply object to a pampered World Economic Forum fascist being foisted upon them.
As regards the Masons, though an endless number of allegations have been made against them, those allegations do not make a theory. They are observations, real or imagined, on how Freemasons work and they lead to hypotheses, which must be tested. Now, those who say the Masons, the Jesuits, the Jews or any broadly similar group control world affairs fall down at this very important hurdle: because theories or hypotheses such as theirs, which purport to explain everything, actually explain nothing, they are stilted theologies that get us absolutely nowhere.
One either accepts their theology and joins their cult or one continues to question and test and to ultimately reject all such cults, including those with massive marketing budgets, the biggest of which is that, which empowers and enriches our regional, national and trans-national overlords. And, although their marketeers seem to be all froth and no substance, they have been very successful froth peddlers ever since Edward Bernays first pulled the wool over governments and women more than 100 years ago. To believe that our political overlords have been on the level with us all that time is to display an innocence that belongs only in a cloistered convent and that is a destination the Gender Studies legions would object to, just as they object to much else.
What these strange folk are doing is hijacking the received narrative to shape today. Gone, for example, is the Bradleyist interpretation of the Shakespearian tragedy and even JK Rowling is being exiled from her own Harry Potter franchise because she won’t accept Alice in Wonderland’s Humpty Dumpty logic regarding the definition of womanhood.
The Bradleyist interpretation of Shakespeare is relevant as unorthodox, unpopular or downright stupid interpretations of history are held up as symptoms of these so-called conspiracy theorists. But historians do not work to theories; they consult, as far as is practicable, primary sources and draw conclusions, hopefully bias-free, therefrom for others to build upon. Because these soft sciences have no hard component equivalent to Maxwell’s equations, their ether lends itself to manipulation by the gullible, as well as those with sinister agendas.
That much should be obvious and, although this cancer is bad enough in literature and history, its toxins are now seeping into the hard sciences, exposures like that of the Sokal hoax notwithstanding.
Sokal noticed Jacques Derrida claiming to understand Einstein’s constant and proving he didn’t. Sokal wondered how abstruse mathematical topics not used in chemistry or biology and only very rarely in physics could possibly become relevant in the humanities or social sciences. Sokal showed these hucksters were using all the well established tricks of the intellectual charlatan and he exposed Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard and Gilles Deleuze as the self-serving frauds that they were.
Postmodernism and similar schools are, Sokal shows, the software through which the hardware of ineffective, reactionary remedies enter the socio political system. To be blunt about it, French philosophers like Jacques Derrida have even less to offer than does Aristotle and that also applies to the university departments they continue to poison. They are far worse than any conspiracy minded barfly.
Although conspiracy theory canards should be debated and then dismissed as the red herrings that they are, we cannot debate The World Economic Forum’s Humpty Dumptys where words means precisely what they want them to mean. If we are ever to break free from their shackles, we must first articulate a platform that resonates with society’s real stakeholders. But, as Sokal asserts, we will not do that with the narcissistic sophistry of Derrida and his chums. Rather, we must instead challenge those like Trudeau, Macron and Ardern, who mask their virtue signalling fascism in the honeyed maze of Derrida and the reactionary Gender Studies tripe he spawned.
The case against Covid mandates, as articulated by Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore and Robert Kennedy Jnr, exemplifies. These three, amongst others, have not only shredded the accepted Covid narrative but, irrespective of whether they are “right” or “wrong” or whether they adhere to some conspiracy worshipping coven or other, they have given us cause to question and debate that narrative.
But debate is the very last thing the World Economic Forum’s Young Leaders want or can handle. Debate is bad for business, debate slows down decision-making and debate is, in any case, redundant as those who profit from Covid have, so they proclaim, settled the science once and forever.
And that is the key and cardinal point. The World Economic Forum’s consuls declare that those they oppose are conspiracy cultists, who should be cancelled, much like Rome cancelled the Catacomb dwellers. JK Rowling? A TERF, so persecute her. Canadian truckers? Theoretical heretics, so rob $10 million from them. Dostoevsky? Russian, so off with his head and kick his cat.
How, why and to what benefit ? The how has been a gradual ongoing and well funded war of attrition where these subversives took an inch on academia’s lowest rung and, with massive funding and targeted intimidation, expanded to where they have even expelled JK Rowling from her own franchise. The why has been to emasculate us all and, as the Harry Potter saga shows, to even cancel the imaginations of children. The benefit to the World Economic Forum and their NATO enforcers is to allow us collude in them cancelling Russia, the world’s biggest country, from our intellectual, economic, cultural, historical and even geographical space. Not even Harry Potter or Humpty Dumpty could conceptualize that degree of nihilistic madness.
For all their philosophical flaws, the French have the right idea when they kick against these pricks and strive, however imperfectly, for liberté, égalité, fraternité, for grounded ideals which are infinitely nobler than those who rule over them and over us. We, on the other hand, have fallen so far from grace one doubts we will ever rise again. And somewhat like how Delilah emasculated Samson, so also have we been seduced not with a bang from a gendarme’s truncheon but by the Gender Studies whimperings of insipid politicians. The price for our submission can be seen not only in our crumbling cities but in the endless wars NATO pretends to be fighting on our behalf.
If we look at it all through a stochastic rather than a deterministic lens, then things may not be that grim. The coming economic turbulence may be a blessing as well as the curse it will undoubtedly be, if we reject Foucault’s pretentiousness and shift our efforts back towards criticizing our failing economies, our corrupt states and our compromized leaders, whilst also improving our daily lives, reading Dostoevsky, adhering to grounded ideologies, and promoting sober social relations and community-rooted cultures. Striving, in short, for a life worth living, free from the petty chicanery of those who benefit from parroting NATO’s conspiracy theory slurs to deflect from their own vile conspiracies and viler intrigues.
