Category: Conspiracy Corner

Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac (with Lucas lurking on the sidelines) on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show” about conspiracy theories.

Alex Jones has been at it again, making links between gun shooting atrocities which place the blame on the American State seeking to control its citizens rather than on what seems to be a plausible (but harder to deal with) explanation, which is that there is something wrong in America’s love of unregulated weaponry.

But not just that: Jones also seems to think that such atrocities are being used to demonise him and the fellow travellers who hang out at Infowars(.com).

Normally I would write a long piece to accompany the link to the segment, but this week I’m running up against deadlines, so here’s a link to what Jones’s said, and here’s me on the topic.

Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac (with Lucas and Ellen lurking on the sidelines) on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show” about conspiracy theories.

Let me start out by stating the following: I agree with many learned people on the internet that “Pronunciation Book” and the story I am about to tell is some kind of viral marketing for an ARG (alternative reality game) and thus whilst the way in which “Pronunciation Book” certainly looks conspiratorial, it’s fair to say that the uncovering of this conspiracy will not (I may need to correct myself in a week) lead to the discovery of great injustices and sinister institutional activities.

So, with that said, let me introduce you to “Pronunciation Book”.

“Pronunciation Book” is (or was) a YouTube channel containing instructional videos on how to pronounce certain words, like “Quiche”:

As part of its schtick, the Pronunciation Book videos used sample sentences to illustrate the words in question, like this example from the “Can/Can’t” video:

I can still hope for Mendoza’s cooperation but I can’t imagine how we’ll explain this to the Chief.

“Pronunciation Book” was an oddity for about three years, given that it would sometimes be quite instructional (such as it’s video on “How to use superlatives in English”) whilst other times being merely odd (such as it’s video on how to pronounce “quiche”). However, on the 9th of July ((One day after my birthday? Co-incidence: I think so.)), the countdown began.

Countdown to what, you might ask? Good question. As seems to be the way of the world now, people on the internet started to collaborate to try and find out what was going on. Rather than me merely trying to summarise their work, I’m going to provide you a link to the discussion document they have generated, which goes through all the available evidence and the major theories.

77 Days Research Document

So, why is this interesting if, as it looks likely, it’s just canny advertising for an ARG?

Well, in part because it supports a thesis I have about the way information is shared amongst members of a community. The investigation into who is behind Pronunciation Book and what it is they might be up to has been an entirely crowd-sourced affair and the result is quite incredible: we now know an awful lot about who is (currently) behind Pronunciation Book and we have some fairly good theories as to what it is they are up to.

This then, is a nice example of how we might investigate conspiracy theories: the work that has gone into the “77 Days Research Document” is a great demonstration of how such community-lead investigation of mysterious states of affairs could work. Theories have been proposed and numerous candidate explanations have been relegated to the “Legacy Theories” section because the evidence for such theories turned out to be lacking.

Now, before we get all “This is the future!” it’s important to realise an important difference between the investigation of Pronunciation Book and, say, the investigation of the events of 9/11. In the case of Pronunciation Book we have a mystery which needs resolving, whilst in the case of 9/11 we have an alleged case of a conspiracy which requires uncovering. There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of examples of people creating disinformation to put off investigators into the mystery of who is behind Pronunciation Book, and what it is they are planning to do, whilst in the case of 9/11 the claim is that the well-regarded explanation is not just dubious as an explanation but it is also part of a disinformation campaign to distract the public from the truth of what happened that day. As such, the investigation into Pronunciation Book looks nice and level-headed because there’s no attendant hypothesis about disinformation needing to be countered.

Finally, the analysis of the investigation of Pronunciation Book it rather supports my notion that we should be working with perfectly general notions of both “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory”. The mystery behind Pronunciation Book case looks like it’s a conspiracy, given that there is a plan that has been hatched in secret to achieve some end, presumably orchestrated by more than one person. ((This last clause, in re Pronunciation Book, is up for debate.)) Despite the lack (or so it seems at this juncture) of revelations of malign political shenanigans, this is perfect fodder for a conspiracy theory analysis. By showing how we can analyse such a case, we can hopefully remove–at least partially–the stigma involved in believing and analysing other such cases.

Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac (with Lucas lurking on the sidelines) on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show” about conspiracy theories.

When I were but a lad, being a radio ham was still the kind of thing parents engaged in. ((It’s quite possible parents still engage in radio hamming, but I’m out of touch, being neither a parent nor one to read up on what modern parents get up to.)) I have memories of my father tuning his CB ((And electrocuting himself in front of me. The smell of burning flesh is hard to forget.)) and listening in to what people were talking about on the short wave and whilst I have no memory of what he heard (and what I overheard him listening to) it was a thing.

I bring this up because being a radio ham may not be a thing anymore ((Or it might be, as I admitted above.)), and that’s ((Possibly.)) a shame, because there’s an awful lot of weird noise out there, and theories as to why that might be the case.

Yes, verily, we’re talking about broadcasts like UVB-76.

I’ve been aware of broadcasts like UVB-76 ever since I started reading the Fortean Times. Broadcasts like UVB-76 are a topic of some fascination in Forteana, given that they an mysterious noises which often have confusing histories and not entirely satisfactory explanations. UVB-76 is thought to be a Russian military broadcast, and it is mostly a series of tones (about 25 a minute, I believe) but sometimes the broadcast is interspersed with cryptic phrases. What we do know (and there’s little we can be entirely sure about when it comes to UVB-76) is that the tones not automatically generated but are the result of some human being pressed a buzzer every few seconds, minute after minute, hour after hour.

People have tried to triangulate the broadcast and find out where it originates from, all in order to find out why. Theories have been advanced: it’s simply a away for the Russian military to keep in contact with its various bases, it’s a failsafe device should Mother Russia fall to nuclear fire or its a spare channel for the Voice of Russia.

The “Why?” here is important, because no one outside the military really knows the purpose of UVB-76. ((If, indeed, UVB-76 is Russian military; it seems likely, but maybe its not?)) As such, it’s not just the the absence of solid information which has led to a proliferation of theories, but the failure of the Powers-That-Be to address these claims has created conspiracy theories. What is it that they don’t want us to know?

Take, for example, one of the theories. Some have theorised that UVB-76 is a fail-safe device/deadman’s switch come a nuclear war. Should the series of tones cease, then Russia’s nukes will be launched and revenge from the grave will be Russia’s last act in a very short war.

Now, if the fail-safe theory is correct, you can understand why the military might be unwilling to talk about UVB-76: explaining to everyone that, yes, that’s the fail-safe tone would render it useless; in any first strike scenario the enemy would simply make sure the tone keeps being broadcast. At the same time, the military haven’t spread any disinformation about UVB-76, which is kind of what you would expect if it were a fail-safe device. Then again, spreading disinformation about UVB-76 might convince people it really was a fail-safe device, so perhaps maintaining silence is the way to go?

Confused? I am. But you can see how in the absence of an official explanation for UVB-76 how you can start generating plausible explanations, the lack of confirmation of which might lead to claims of conspiracy.

Anyway, UVB-76 is a fascinating phenomenon, and you can read more about it here.

Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac (with Lucas lurking on the sidelines) on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show” about conspiracy theories.

Once upon a time, two cheeky lads who, because they were leaders of countries who loved spending money on toys that go “Boom!” and “Explodo!”, decided that the world would be a better place if an old chum of theirs was no longer able to come out to play. They believed, in their hearts of hearts, that the plan was not only a good one but was, as they had heard ethicists say, “the most moral course of action.”

There was only one, very little problem, which was that these two lads didn’t have all that good a rationale to go through on this plan. Oh, their former chum was a naughty boy, but his very naughtiness was what had endeared him to them in the first place. They needed a reason, and a good one, to not just get him but also to turn everyone else against him as well.

Being bullies, they persuaded some school yard acquaintances to go and fetch some evidence of wrongdoing. Not just any evidence, however. No, it had to be a special kind of evidence. When their acquaintances came back and said “There ain’t any!” the lads were perplexed. Didn’t their acquaintances know what they were meant to have found?

The boys approached their teachers, who had once been spent time in the school yard themselves. “They didn’t find it!” they said to the teachers.

“How peculiar,” the teachers said. “When we were their age it was easy to find. Let’s amend their reports; it’ll all be fine.”

Soon the lads were passing around the edited report, and some of their school yard chums were a little less that enthused by it. “Didn’t your acquaintances say something different?” they would say to them. “No, the teachers pointed out what was wrong”, the lads replied. “Really?” everyone said. “Yes”, the lads sighed, believing better.

Thus was born the Dodgy Dossier.

Yes, today we talked about Syria and how the legacy of the dossier which “legitimised” the invasion of Iraq has lead to some skepticism about the “legitimacy” of taking military action against the Assad regime in Syria.

Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show” about conspiracy theories.

This week’s chosen conspiracy theory is very simple indeed: someone on the internet thinks that the hackitivist group “Anonymous” is actually a front for the CIA, NSA, et cetera who are perpetrating acts of internet sabotage in order to create a pretext for the Establishment to step in and shut the internet down.

They’ve even made a video and uploaded it to Youtube, so it must be true! ((Hat-tip to Carrie Stoddart for letting my know about this.))

Huh. Anyway, I have thoughts.

And no, for avid listeners of the segment, no, that’s not the Pork Board.

The video, by AnonymousisCIA, alleges that the group Anonymous is a false flag operation by the American Government (at the very least; some of the references to other groups suggests it’s a really New World Order plot) to curtail our internet freedoms. The author of the video claims to once have been a support of Anonymous but they have worked out Anonymous’s real intentions which are:

Replicate a false cyberwar which is inevitably giving those in charge the exact powers to inforce new legislation which is simply killing the internet.

AnonymousisCIA gives a list of events which they say shows that whenever Anonymous makes an “attack” the US government then responds/retaliates with new legislation.

My first thought on hearing this is that the author seems to be arguing in the wrong direction. They start out with “This is the state of the world today!” and are arguing back from that to “Who would have wanted this state of affairs to happen?” As such, AnonymousisCIA is claiming “This came about due to the plan” and is downplaying the other possibility, which is that no one planned for this to happen and the current state of affairs is due to governments and organisations like Anonymous and Wikileaks ((For those of you who are fans of Wikileaks… Well, apparently Wikileaks is just another tentacle of the plot and aren’t to be trusted either. Oh, and Occupy is another false flag operation. Frankly, I’m surprised anything is authentic these days.)) reacting to one another: governments via leglisation; organisations like Anonymous through protest action. AnonymousisCIA claims “[T]he more Anonymous hacks, the less we gain.” That maybe be true, but that doesn’t tell us Anonymous is part of a plot to curb internet freedoms. It might just be that governments overreact to Anonymous-style hacks and curb freedoms in order to protect themselves from “evil hacktivists”.

AnonymousisCIA advances a few arguments in support of their conspiracy theory. The first strand is that it’s a lie that supporting Anonymous will help you achieve freedom. AnonymousisCIA claims the converse is true; by supporting Anonymous this gives the government grounds attack us all with the full force of the law. It’s a bit of a strange argument because it assumes supporting Anonymous is the same as being anonymous on the Internet (lack of capitalisation intended). You can be generally supportive of Anonymous the group without acting in an Anonymous fashion or deciding to become anonymous. As such, AnonymousisCIA appears to be trading on an ambiguity as to what support of Anonymous entails and this is problematic because it strictly associates attacks on the group Anonymous with people choosing to be anonymous on the Internet. It might be the case the two are linked, but it’s not entailed.

The second strand to the argument is actually a fairly interesting question: why should we trust a completely anonymous group when we don’t seem to trust our own non-anonymous governments? The answer to this is complex: our trust in public institutions is fairly conditional on who these institutions are and how open they appear to be. Certainly, part of the reason as to how we judge how trustworthy these organisations are is going to be due to who happens to belong to them. ((For example, I distrust Steven Joyce and John Key and, as such, I distrust the driving forces of Executive of the National Party and thus the tenor of the current Government.)) However, the reasons for our trust in the institutions which govern us surely differ from whatever trust we might have in a group like Anonymous? Indeed, it’s not entirely clear that supporting a group necessarily entails we have a trusting relationship with said group; it might just be we dislike some other group so much that we tolerate our chosen group no matter its foibles.

For example, a lot of people on the Left tolerate misogynists in leadership positions in their ranks (and fail to criticise them) because (charitably-speaking-for an odd sense of “charitable”) such supporters dislike their opponents so much that they express support for untrustworthy people because at least these untrustworthy people wave red flags rather than blue ones (reverse the colours if you are in America). Now, in some sense it is true that a few people on the Left “trust” these individuals but in many cases they merely support them. ((A similar argument can be made for our supposed “trust” in governments as well; I know of several people who distrust the current National Government but distrust a potential Labour-Greens Coalition even more.))

My point is that whilst it’s quite interesting to say “Why trust Anonymous, who are anonymous, when we don’t even trust our own governments?” it turns out the answer to that question does not tell us much about whether our trust or support in Anonymous is misplaced.

The third argumentative strand is the claim that Anonymous should have been infiltrated by now by the government (so even if Anonymous was initially a legitimate protest group, it probably isn’t anymore). It’s an interesting claim (once again) but if the author of the video really was a full supporter of Anonymous in the past they obviously didn’t understand Anonymous’s flat structure. Anonymous is a hydra where most of the heads are blind: it’s hard to know how you could subvert such an organisation. Yes, you could act in Anonymous’s name and engage in false flag operations, but Anonymous, as a collective, seems very good at distancing itself from activities that do not suit their brand.

The fourth argument is that the logo of Anonymous depicts faceless/headless suits in front of the symbol for the United Nations. What more could you want as proof these people are the New World Order? Of course, things go slightly awry because AnyonmousisCIA claims the UN logo is a government logo, which somewhat assumes the existence of a One World Government. Cart before the horse (or some similar aphoristic dismissal of an argument). ((There’s also a weird little tangent about how Anonymous is not an idea but a group of people and how ideas don’t hack computers; people do. I’m really not sure what to make of this, other than “Yes, this is true” and “So?”))

The fifth argument presents a response to the quite reasonable question of “Why a conspiracy?” AnonymousisCIA admits the government could just pull the plug on the internet, but that this would cause too many problems. So, they have engineered a problem which can only be resolved by curbing internet freedoms. But this is an answer to a question of “Why conspiracy?” where the answer is “Conspiracy!” which then relies on “Past conspiracies!” as support. AnonymousisCIA asserts that false flags are common but it’s really not that clear they are. An argument needs to be provided to support this claim, and whilst some conspiracy theorists will say it’s just common sense, this conspiracy theorist would like some more evidence, please.

The final argument (such as it is) is the claim that we can tell Anonymous is a false flag because Fox News says terrible things about them. There’s a curious logic to this: Fox News, it is claims, wants to create and sustain a climate of fear. Anonymous gives Fox News the ammunition to do exactly this, so it must be the case that Anonymous acts the way it does precisely so Fox News can write fear-inducing headlines. It’s a really nice idea, but, once again, it assumes the existence of the conspiracy AnonymousisCIA is trying to persuade us exists.

In the end, AnonymousisCIA doesn’t really give an argument as to why the conspiracy theory is a better explanation than some coincidence theory, other than that they once supported Anonymous and now they don’t. More problematically, AnonymousisCIA is presenting their argument pseudonymously, which doesn’t fill one with much hope. ((Although one is aware that the comments on the YouTube video show a lot of support for AnonymousisCIA’s argument, so one-who feels stupid for keeping this third person stuff up-might be alone in thinking pseudonymous commentary on an anonymous organisation is a plot point from “The Man Who Was Thursday”.)) So, you could be forgiven for thinking AnonymousisCIA is itself a front for the CIA, NSA and the Establishment, given that alleging Anonymous is a false flag operation might be a false flag operation itself, one designed to sow confusion and doubt about the activities of Anonymous. Certainly, that was my first thought. What better way to slag off Anonymous than to do it pseudo-anonymously?

I’m also suspicious as to whether we should take the video seriously because I have a sneaking suspicion its a parody. ((There’s also the robo-voice, which, at least to my mind, screams parody.)) Take the line “Before you judge my theory, I’ve studied cybersecurity and law for twenty-seven years!” It’s the kind of grand statement (which is offered but not backed up) that I’d include if I was trying to create a video with a sense of authenticity. There’s also the complete dismissal of any opposing view: either you are a dupe or you are lying. Although… what I’m taking as markers of parody here are also the kind of angry-yet-sincere things certain conspiracy theorists are sometimes want to say in defence of their theories, so… Well, the jury is out.