I hate conspiracies. Really, I do.
Conspiracies are by their very nature quirky and implausible. When the popular understanding of an event has more than satisfied the vast majority, the conspiracy theorist is keen to insert some deranged possibility ('we never really landed on the moon'). Conspiracies are conversational fodder for those situated at the periphery of society ('US government has alien remains stashed away in Area 51'). Sometimes, conspiracies are used by the weak and the weak-minded to explain away their failures ('the Jews are behind all the chaos in the world').
I hate conspiracies.
But more than that, I hate those of you who write-off plausible critical analyses to global occurrences as conspiracies. As if to say that any narrative not in sync with yours (which you've merely parroted from the media) must be some wacky conspiracy.
What freakin' arrogance.
So the point of view espoused by the talking heads and public officials and university professors and other gods of rhetoric and subsequently regurgitated by your not-so-discerning intellect is the one and only possibility? And anything to the contrary is laughed off as a stupid conspiracy?
Really?!
To suggest that the Iraq war was more about money, oil, and geopolitical strategy than about gifting the people of Iraq democracy and liberty is a conspiracy?
To suggest that Darfur is more than the Arab government of Sudan savaging poor African farmers is a conspiracy?
To suggest that Pakistan's endless spiraling into chaos is more than the handiwork of jihadis is a conspiracy?
To suggest that the war in DR Congo is fueled less by tribal wars and more by corporate greed for natural resources is a conspiracy?
All the above have been callously labeled as conspiracies because they don't chime with the 'official' explanation that you've swallowed lock, stock, and barrel. Have you become so lazy that you refuse to lift the confusing layers of deceit blanketing the daily news?
Repeat a lie enough times and it will be accepted as truth.
According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest back in the 80's that America was supporting the Afghan mujahideen and even had a hand in creating Al-Qaeda.
According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002.
According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in Ethiopian forces storming into Somalia and ousting the Islamic Courts in late 2006.
The list goes on with countless other 'conspiracy theories' that have been proven true (Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, CIA renditions, etc.).
Simple minds accept simple explanations to complex situations.
Listen, I'm as skeptical of zany 9/11 theories as the other guy. Really, I am. But when serious geopolitical events take place around the world and the writing on the wall clearly suggests alternative narratives to the ones pushed forward by press releases and PR specialists, I'm more than a bit skeptical.
And my skepticism turns to outright anger when my suggestion of thinking outside the officially mandated box is written off by you as conspiracy. As if I'm being equated to the losers who believe that Elvis is still alive.
What the hell?!
You need to go back and re-read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman. It talks about the techniques employed by corporations and governments - "techniques of regimentation of minds used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course."
[For lazy slobs like me, watch the Manufacturing Consent documentary. You can download the entire 700MB video here. For the even more lazier, here is a nice summary about how consent is manufactured in public opinion.]
This urge to marginalize alternative explanations (as if to prove to the powers that be 'hey, look at me, not only have I fallen for your explanation hook, line, and sinker, but I'm even crapping on those who suggest otherwise') has seeped into the Muslim community. Now, any and every terrorist event is apologetically attributed to the Muslims. Granted, the jihadi element within the Ummah have long crossed the line on decency and acceptable norms, but must you so quickly take the baton from the western media and despotic heads of state in attributing every evil deed to Muslim terrorists?
And then you flippantly denounce any other possibility as a conspiracy?
Have you become so intellectually inert that you simply rehash the media headlines as you see them and the governmental press releases as you read them? Is it so difficult for you to allow the rays of your intellect to burn through the propaganda-filled fog clouding your judgment?
WAW
3 days ago
6 comments:
hello i am a Muslim, and i found that your work is really open spoken; but let it be in a more islamically conservative border, like talking about the media leaders and addressing them by gods, i know you don't mean or even intended it, but just for everybody's sake be in the safe side when it comes to addressing characters even though it is meant to mock them, and remember that we are judged by what we say, speak and everything we do, and salaams brother and sorry if i was a little bit irritating.
Hmm.
Conspriracy theories, some are just really hard NOT to believe. How do you counter all the theories backed-up by proof about 9/11?
It always seems to me like your very sympathetic towards Muslims, that we shouldn't jump on a case hearing, "Muslim terrorist beheads his wife". True the media does portray everything in an anti-Islamic way but shouldn't we still condemn the non-Islamic actions. Shouldn't we condemn it before we are condemned for not condemning it?
Also! I dont see all these as practical solutions. If your at work, talking to a co-worker and someone brings up the Taliban and you say, "Lets not be so quick to judge them" this co-worker who only knows the western side, he will think your a pro-Taliban, pro-terrorism lunatic. Is that really practical?
-The Muslim Kid-
AA-
@elfatih, welcome to the blog. Forgive me if you were offended by my reference to the gods of rhetoric. My intent, as you understood, was not to declare other gods than Allah. The usage of the term 'gods' with lowercase G is another way of referring to people that have been given high status.
And your comment was not the least bit irritating. :-)
@MK, the 9/11 stuff is simply too confusing with all their proofs and what not. Personally, I find it simply too audacious to believe that such an enormous attack could have been carried out on its own people by any state agency.
On condemning, I agree - we should condemn heinous acts no matter who carries them out. But we should be balanced as well. No need to jump on the pulpit and scream out condemnations of Muslim violence solely to prove your civility and acceptability to western society.
Finally, about your co-worker question, its a very touchy situation. People have become so brainwashed into thinking one way that to deprogram them is extremely difficult. People are simply too lazy to think, especially outside the box.
However, if you find someone willing to listen to alternative possibilities, its not very difficult to open their eyes. The facts are very convincing - people just need to see them.
Wait, i thought I didn't submit my comment to your previous post!
Very well-written. I'm surprised this did not receive more comments.
Weak minds want simple explanations, yes. But sometimes the explanations are empirically simple, and weak minds reject them, embracing the more "complex" media-based ideas.
Again, much food for thought. Thanks for writing!
AA- UmmFarouq,
"But sometimes the explanations are empirically simple, and weak minds reject them, embracing the more "complex" media-based ideas."
Excellent point that I failed to consider. People sometimes overlook the simplistic explanation in favor of the more complex one, over-complicating the analysis.
Appreciate your comment!
Post a Comment