Warm-up:
If you're asked a question with three possible answers, A, B, and C, and the correct answer is A, then by choosing B, you're lying. You're also lying by saying C, or combining two or more falsehoods: B+C or diluting the truth with lies: A+B+C or cautiously saying, "Maybe A." or "It depends..." If you think B is correct but say A — that's also a foolish lie. And, of course, if you know the true answer but claim not to know or simply remain silent — that's cowardly deceit. Thus, you can only stay an honest person by calling a Cat a Cat, and also, if you genuinely don't know the truth and explicitly state, "I don't know." But then, the question arises: what kind of propagandist are you?
One would like to believe that the reader has heard the expression "This is a conspiracy theory" not just once, not only in the media but also from close friends and acquaintances. I dare to assume that most have used this label in a conversation, usually to corner an opponent and triumphantly end the discussion. "Oh, you doubt the election results, believe in conspiracy theories, then there's nothing more to talk to you about!" — I don't specify which elections are being referred to, but such "final diagnoses" were heard in America both in 2016 and 2020 and 2022. It reminds me of how my dad tried to reconcile women on a bus: after exchanging epithets like "Cow" and "Fool," he suggested they calm down because "You're both right."
Accusations of supporting or quoting a theory classified as a conspiracy can be pretty costly, such as losing a home or getting fired from a job. Of course, such a person is dangerous and should be isolated from influencing politically inexperienced voters as much as possible. It's better not to present arguments, but it is implied that any questions have a simple and clear explanation, and if some facts do not align with the general line, the truth is still above those facts. There is also talk of Occam's Razor principle (Guillaume d'Ockham), which postulates that in 90% of cases, the simplest explanation of what happened is proper, suggesting there's no need to complicate things. But conspirators precisely focus on these remaining ten percent.
For example, during the vote count after elections (where do votes go in America?), in the state of Arizona, it turns out that almost all voting machines broke down — this is a fact, and no one denies it. But if you try to ask questions officially, the response will be a condescending smile from the official: "Yes, they break down, but we'll fix them, and everything will be fine." — "When will you fix them?" — "When we fix them, we'll finish counting, go away, troublemaker (nudnick)" — If thoughts cross your mind that voting machines "broke down" in a similar way in past elections, and brick doesn't just fall on this head for no reason, and the matter smells like large-scale falsification, you have already committed a thought crime (Orwell's Thoughtcrime) and are considered a supporter of conspiracy theories. That's how simple and punishable it is.
If we are talking about the present, proving anything to an ordinary person not privy to primary documentation seems impossible: "John F. Kennedy was killed by a lone maniac, Lee Oswald! Period!" — "But the motive?" — "Personal hatred!" — "Why did Ruby kill Oswald?" — "Because Ruby loved the president and his wife, Jacqueline!" — "Why did Oswald travel to the USSR?" — "Oh, you're a supporter of conspiracy theories. The Warren Commission investigated everything — read the report and shut up!" — "But the commission's documents are classified for 75 years!" — "Well then, shut up and wait... We only have 15 years left."
But hopes are slim, especially if President Trump promised to declassify everything and then changed his mind; there must be something to hide. My conspiracy theory is already ready: it is clearly a KGB operation: there's a motive — revenge for the humiliation of Khrushchev and his gang in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The security agencies have the technical capabilities, and after living many years in the USSR, Oswald could not have avoided recruitment: how else would he have traveled back and forth from America to Russia and even to Cuba in the early 60s? If so, then American intelligence agencies can be understood — they messed up and then quickly covered their tracks, and local accomplices were probably involved. My theory, of course, is unfounded, but it explains the known facts better than the Warren Commission's report.
But not always is everything so hopeless and unprovable; sometimes the secret becomes evident, and conspirators can be avenged, preferably while still alive. But before that, let's talk theoretically about theories — their meaning and why they proliferate. By definition, a theory is an ordered system of views on a phenomenon or process that explains certain facts and has predictive power, meaning it can be tested experimentally. If such testing is impossible, the theory remains unproven, and its status is reduced to a hypothesis. For example, in the science of geology (geotectonics), the theory of Fixism asserts that continents are immovable, and the fact of the increase in the height of some mountain ranges is explained by uneven heating of the Earth's crust from within. The alternative theory of Mobilism (Wegener 1912) suggests that continents (Eurasia, America, Africa, and others) move on the Earth's surface, and mountains form and grow because these continents collide and overlap, as in the case of the Himalayas. Until the 80s, Fixism prevailed in Soviet geology, and Mobilism was considered harmful Western conspiracy and was banned; mobilists were naturally oppressed, just like cyberneticians, geneticists, and Einsteinian physicists.
So, to refute a theory, one contradictory and proven counterfact is enough, but to prove it, it is advantageous to demonstrate its predictive ability. Even the striking resemblance of the outlines of Africa and South America did not convince fixists that they were once a single continent that split in ancient times and continues to drift apart. The collapse of Fixism occurred when, based on the theory of Mobilism, Western scientists predicted the wealthiest oil and gas deposits in the Sahara Desert and the Arctic. Soon, fixists disappeared from the scientific horizon as if they had never existed. This is especially characteristic of the end of confrontations on the scientific and political stage: it hasn't been two years since the "Defund Police" movement emerged, and its supporters are now nowhere to be found. Or, just for the sake of argument, a white supremacist villain attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband, and the entire American press was outraged. But then all sorts of theories started to appear about what the supremacist actually did in the victim's house, and suddenly everything fell silent, absolutely no comments as if this event never happened. Investigating the details is very unpleasant, but a sudden "information vacuum" means that conspiracy theories have found 100% confirmation, and denying them is impossible.
Here's another example of the triumph of the conspiracy theory against Soviet historical science regarding the causes and the beginning of the Great Patriotic War in 1941. How did it happen that the Nazis captured vast territories and three million prisoners in just three to four weeks? Students of my post-war generation and the next two never doubted for a moment that the Soviet Union was peacefully building socialism and fascist Germany treacherously attacked it. And suddenly, a defector named Viktor Suvorov published the book "Icebreaker" (1988, of course, in the West), claiming that the USSR was preparing to attack Germany precisely two weeks after the fateful June 22, 1941, meaning Hitler simply delivered a preemptive strike out of desperation. This is a classic example of a conspiracy, and the entire Soviet military-historical science mobilized to combat "Suvorovism" — more than forty exposé books were written.
It should be noted that Viktor had a tough time with evidence: archives were closed, and the primary documents on the Communist party leadership's decisions on preparing for war were likely destroyed. But not everything can be hidden; even Orwell's Ministry of Truth in the novel "1984" couldn't wholly rewrite history, and certainly not the Communists. Initially, the theory was confirmed by collecting numerous facts from open sources and eyewitness testimonies, which formed a coherent and meaningful picture: slightly simplifying, it can be said that since Stalin came to power in 1927, the Soviet Union did nothing but prepare for war — collectivization, industrialization, militarization, and army purges all made sense and were essential. I, for example, was convinced by the testimonies collected by Suvorov from Soviet soldiers and officers about what they were doing in the last 2-3 days before the war: they were demining bridges across border rivers and removing barbed wire barriers. Tell me it's not true, then why weren't any of the six bridges over the Bug River blown up to delay the Germans on June 22? Then, one day, I asked my father, "Dad, in the 1930s, you were already a schoolboy, and you understood a bit of what was happening; were you afraid of war?" — "Probably, we were afraid, but our entire life was built around preparing for this war: songs about war, movies, books, and DOSAAF*"
But then came Perestroika, and suddenly, some archival documents appeared: a secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on the division of spheres of influence, Gorbachev declassified the Katyn execution lists of Polish officers, and much more that couldn't have been. The Soviet military doctrine of peaceful socialism trembled and slowly began to give ground: well, maybe they (we) wanted to attack Germany, but not in '41, but in '42...; it's all Stalin alone, but Zhukov warned him... Then they gave up this line of defense too — documents emerged about Politburo meetings explicitly discussing the date of the attack on Germany in July '41, and then there was nothing left but to shuffle the cards: Stalin was stupid — he eliminated all the good military leaders, and the remaining fools dragged him into this adventure. In Russia, foolishness and drunkenness can justify any crime.
And here is where a strange "inconsistency" occurred — it's clear that the USSR was preparing for the conquest and communization of Europe, and Germany was forced to strike first, violating Bismarck's prohibition of fighting on two fronts. I read the diaries of Count Ciano, the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mussolini's son-in-law, where he recalls a conversation with Hitler, who informed him of the plan to attack Russia at the end of 1940: "But I have no way out, Count!" After such irrefutable testimonies, it seemed possible to reconsider the WWII history narrative and at least change some evaluations. But no, apart from the fraction of Russian intelligentsia, no one was particularly interested in the Suvorov theory — neither Germany, nor European countries, nor America are in a hurry to do so. I once tried to get "The Icebreaker" in English at the local library (Boston Public Library) — no copy, you have to order it, and you can't take it out of the library, but "Mein Kampf" is available — seven copies. It's sad to note that if you lie for a long time, say fifty or seventy years, and elevate this lie to the level of state history, exposing it may turn out to be too costly, especially if there has already been repentance. This happened in Germany, in Rwanda after the genocide, in South Africa after apartheid, in Yugoslavia — it's better not to stir things up, or you might really uncover some conspiracy.
By the way, the reader might ask, what about the conspiracy? After all, we are fighting against the Conspiracy Theory, not just any theory that questions the official point of view. Yes, of course, when Dr. Watson in the story "The Dancing Men" questioned Sherlock Holmes's hypothesis about the criminal intent of the one who drew stick figures on the windowsill, we shouldn't discuss a conspiracy. However, there was a clash of theories: Watson and the victim's husband believed it was drawings of some children. And in the end, it turned out that a lone bandit from Chicago was responsible. But such cases are not worthy of our attention. For a conspiracy, you need more than one person, at least two. In the case of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the primary efforts of the investigation were directed at proving that Oswald acted alone while conspiracists were looking for organizations.
In general, dear readers, if something inexplicably strange happens and attempts to interpret the existing facts are declared conspiracy theories, it is a sure sign that you are not supposed to know the truth. Russian gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea were blown up, and on the first day, we were told that the Russians did it themselves and blew it up. "Why would they do that?" — "Because they are bad, and all evil comes from them!"Indeed, I've always said, 'There are no crimes the Bolsheviks wouldn't commit!'" — "Of course, they are bad, but I still don't see the motive. Maybe let's think about who benefits from this?" — "Stop bothering us, conspirators; Sweden and Denmark will conduct an investigation, and the secret will become apparent." — "Alright, I give up, but their investigation probably will be long; will we wait for the results?" — "Oh, you're wrong again — it's all done already!" — "Great, guys, what did they find out? Who blew it up?" — "Well, that's a secret; the commission's results are classified."
And that's it; the conversation is exhausted. But for those seasoned in conspiracies, it's clear: the first and simple explanation based on Occam's Razor is false with a probability close to 100%. If the Russians blew it up, why would the Swedes cover their crimes and keep the investigation results secret?
Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense. Suppose you have some plans, such as stopping an investigation against your relatives by blackmailing and subsequently firing the Ukranian prosecutor, but you really don't want to come under criticism. Then you accuse your political opponent of the same crime — he sold out to the Russians! While they are figuring it out, years will pass, and if they start accusing you, too, there will be a wild cry like in a kindergarten: "Greedy scoundrel! Whoever calls names is what he is!" And that's it; both sides are smeared, and the truth cannot be found.
The same tactic, but in a slightly more sophisticated form, is used when it is absolutely necessary to prevent the truth from coming to light and a conspiracy has indeed taken place. Let's bring up the case of the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 in March 2014. Many wrote about this, and I am guilty of it too (read "The Mystery of Missing Flight MH370"), but the mystery has not been solved yet. And the further it goes, the less chance there is of finding out what happened — poor relatives of the missing passengers. Two tactics are used in investigating this case: the attacking one, where blatantly absurd conspiracy theories are concocted and supported by "experts" to bury reasonable ideas in this information garbage that could lead to a solution. The theory of an on-board fire is still being pushed, although it is reliably known that the plane was in the air and transmitting automatic signals for eight hours, and no fire could last that long. Or the sick theory that the plane was hijacked by American intelligence agencies and landed on Diego Garcia Island. Clearly, this did not happen, mainly because a lot of wreckage was found in the ocean. But these and even more foolish explanations are still being reprinted.
The other tactic of combating conspiracy, under which we understand the search for the truth, is more sophisticated and involves ignoring potentially important and interesting facts for the investigation. - There were two Iranian citizens with fake passports on board MH370, interesting? – No, they are just refugees. - A week after the incident, they are nowhere longer mentioned, which is very strange. – Five people from Flight MH370 refused to fly, returned their tickets, and their luggage was unloaded from the plane at the last minute. Were they questioned? – Unknown, they are not mentioned in the commission's report. – Only 220 tickets were sold for the available 300 seats; why? Maybe the plane was carrying some special cargo? – Maybe, but the Malaysian authorities refused to publish the cargo manifest for two (!) years.
The lack of answers to these questions and ignoring potentially crucial information create an environment where conspiracy theories thrive. When official sources remain silent or provide incomplete and contradictory information, it leaves room for speculation and alternative explanations. The vacuum of information becomes a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, and the more complex and puzzling the situation, the more fertile this ground becomes.
In conclusion, the battle against conspiracy theories is not just about debunking wild ideas but also about fostering transparency, accountability, and a commitment to truth. Governments, organizations, and individuals must recognize the importance of providing accurate and complete information, addressing concerns openly, and engaging in honest dialogue. Only through such efforts can the allure of conspiracy theories be diminished and trust in official narratives be strengthened. This reminds me of the case with the birth certificate, which, for some reason, was not presented immediately but a couple of years later and with factual errors.
After some time, Malaysian investigators cooked a blatant lie about lithium batteries and mangosteens. They published the cargo manifest, and it turned out that they were indeed carrying exotic fruits to China - mangosteens, five tons - where to find room for passengers in this case, the plane is not made of rubber. They also posted cargo manifests for the previous year on the internet: you'll be amused, but almost every day, this MH-370 flight loaded four to five tons of these mangosteens. The author-conspirator felt uneasy: these poor people just wanted to make money transporting fruits to China. Now it's clear that there's some fruit scam going on, but why hide it for two years? After all, an investigation into the disappearance of 239 people is underway, but airline management felt ashamed to confess.
Do you think so? Then take a breath and look at the manifest document: "Fresh mangosteens"! Indeed, there are no fresh mangosteens in South Asia in March - they ripe in May-September. Check it.
As you may guess, these questions were not asked during the investigation, or maybe they were, but the public does not necessarily need to know the answers, as in the case of the gas pipeline explosion.
And now, here's a piece of advice for future conspiracy theorists: hurry up! Manuscripts don't burn, but electronic information can be destroyed; press the DELETE button, and it's all gone. – Will all copies disappear immediately? – Not immediately, but they will disappear. - Dozens of books have been written about the disappearance of Flight MH370, but these little facts are practically non-existent. Information about the five passengers who refused to fly, the Iranians with fake passports, interviews with their accomplice in Malaysia who bought them plane tickets – I gathered all this from the internet in the first week after the catastrophe, but I copied almost nothing. Try finding these posts now, eight years later – your chances are slim. And even if you do find them, it's likely to be in an adapted form – the Ministry of Truth works 24/7. Special moderators tirelessly monitor social networks and eradicate any betrayal, "incorrect" information, "unverified" data, and, of course, everything related to conspiracy theories. As soon as something important and incomprehensible happens, all sorts of eyewitness accounts appear on the internet, the danger of which is not immediately apparent to the moderators – they haven't received instructions on how to present information about the disappearance of the plane from the perspective of, for example, the owners of Twitter or Facebook, whether the news about Iranians on the aircraft could interfere with the impending agreement with Iran on the nuclear program and lifting sanctions. And you have a chance to dig something up. A couple of days will pass, and that's it – the train has left; there were no Iranians – fake news, gentlemen.
But here, the knowledgeable reader will correct me: what about the Internet Archive in California? Did the author forget, or does he not know? After all, such an organization continuously searches the entire internet and collects copies of all pages in a giant storage library. If you want to find a note or a blog post in its original form on the nkvd.ru website on December 1, 1934, about the heinous murder of comrade Kirov carried out by a lone villain Nikolaev, turn to this Internet Archive, and they will satisfy your request.
I have known about this archive for many years, and I reasoned just like my opponent: this is where the truth is preserved for eternity; if needed, we will restore everything written in the first week after the disappearance of the ill-fated plane. But not so long ago, I was driving in a car and listening to an interview on the radio with an employee of this archive – everything was very interesting. In the end, he suddenly said that in some instances, we fulfill orders to restore reputation, meaning we can remove from the archive internet pages with defamatory fabrications about a subscriber. I don't know if it's a paid service or not, but a lot can be attributed to defamatory fabrications... So, make a document copy without hesitation. Now!
*DOSAAF - (rus) -Voluntary Organisation of Assistance to the Army, Aviation and Fleet (1927-present)
(c) Dimus, November 2022
English translation Jan 2024
On point