Your Eyes, Your Ears, Your Mind

An old spectre is haunting our debate these days with fresh energy – the good old conspiracy theory.

Thomas Haldenwang, CDU [Christian Democratic Union] man and head of the Verfassungsschutz [Germany’s domestic intelligence service], declared the other day, on the occasion of the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland] European election assembly, that »right-wing extremist conspiracy theories« were being spread there (zdf.de, July 31, 2023).

As an example of such a »right-wing extremist conspiracy theory« of the AfD, Haldenwang names the »Great Replacement«. Is he referring to the »Replacement Migration« discussed by the UN (see un.org)?

Or does he mean the quasi-blackmail of bringing millions of »skilled workers« into the country because only in this way can pensions be financed (see essay of July 3, 2023)?

Or does the CDU man mean the rising percentage of Muslims in a once Christian-shaped Germany (bamf.de), together with the fighting words of that Spiegel correspondent of the day, Hasnain Kazim? (»Get used to it. We are here, we are becoming more and more, and we lay claim to Germany for ourselves. Whether you like it or not«, see tichyseinblick.de, September 15, 2016.)

Ah – does a term mean what it »means« according to somebody’s private definitions, or does it mean what it is used for in practice?

A Short History of the Term

Like so many terms today, »conspiracy theory« too is undergoing a reinterpretation. At first the word served to devalue a deviant reading of current events.

But in recent years »conspiracy theories« kept turning out to be true, for instance around the Biden family or the Corona panic. Which is to say: the theories were confirmed.

So propaganda tried to remove the »theory« from the term, and people spoke of »conspiracy myths« and »conspiracy narratives«. In fact, with this Newspeak they merely supplied a shibboleth that made propaganda easier to spot (see essay of May 10, 2021). (I generally enjoy documenting these voluntary identifying marks of the post-democratic lockstep; see also »The Democratic Parties« of June 12, 2023.)

I myself rewrote the term into the »something-is-not-right theorist«. And I reversed the charge: it is not the conspiracy theorist who has to justify his thesis, but the conspiracy denier!

In the intro to the essay »The Chicken Conspiracy« I wrote: »In every family and every company there are private interests, backroom deals and self-dealing — conspiracy deniers, however, believe that precisely where there would be plenty to gain, all of that has magically ceased to exist since this morning.«

Word Has Got Around

We can make out two interesting developments: the component words »myths« and »narratives« are giving way to »theory« again. And no one argues against the truth content of these narratives any more – the aim is to declare it taboo to speak about them.

It really has got around by now that yesterday’s conspiracy theories are today’s news reports.

But apparently no one wants to write off the investment that went into charging that term negatively. So it is put to new use: »conspiracy theory« no longer denotes merely the plausible but inconvenient prediction – »conspiracy theory« by now denotes simply the naming and citing of known facts that contradict the desired narrative.

Whether realistic calculations on migration, facts about the mRNA injection, facts about the history of Pfizer, facts about current developments in the EU regarding money and censorship, facts about the environmental destruction caused by supposed climate protection – these and many further topics are no longer prediction and theory.

These facts are known to anyone willing to learn them and to admit them cognitively, and yet naming them counts as a »conspiracy theory« – and as a »right-wing extremist conspiracy theory« when »conspiracy theory« alone does not suffice; see »dysphemism treadmill« in the essay of October 24, 2018.

Courage, and Then Trust

With laconic nonchalance, Germany has arrived at the point that George Orwell in 1984 describes as the »final, most essential command«: »The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.«

Life experience also means developing a sense of whom one should trust and whom not. Your senses and your mind may have erred in the past, but they certainly never did so maliciously, and certainly not because they were being paid to deceive.

So when the narrative in politics and the press contradicts what your senses and your mind tell you, trust the authority that is closer to you and therefore more likely to wish you well.

Immanuel Kant encouraged us: »Have the courage to use your own mind!«

That is true and right, but today we should extend it: have the courage to use your senses and your mind – and then have the steadfastness to trust your senses and your mind!