A Conspiracy of Censorious Bastards

I must apologize for my inadequate vocabulary. I’ve used this word censorious before thinking it meant someone who loves to restrict other people’s ability to express themselves. As I was using it in a title, I decided to check on the exact meaning. My favourite definition comes from vocabulary.com who state

Censorious, an adjective, describes people who are so critical, they find something wrong in everything. Do not let censorious guests come to your next dinner party!

So, not quite what I thought it meant, but on reflection it’s a pretty good word to describe the censors anyway.

Doesn’t this word beautifully describe a certain section of society? You know the one I’m thinking of; begins with a ‘w’ and rhymes with poke and joke. It seems they rarely have anything positive or uplifting to say. They’re pretty much well-characterized as a bunch of nagging nutjobs.

It all started when I read one of Matt Goodwin’s latest pieces. He includes a review of his book which contains the following

In Matthew Goodwin’s book Values, Voice and Virtue, the professor veers uncertainly between what I often thought an absurd and quite dangerous conspiracy theory about a “new elite”, and robust and informative political analysis. But the latter makes his book worthwhile

I haven’t read Goodwin’s book, so I’ve no idea whether what he’s written constitutes a “dangerous” conspiracy theory or not. But then I got to thinking. What, precisely, does constitute a “dangerous” conspiracy theory?

How do I decide whether conspiracy theory X is “safe” and conspiracy theory Y is “dangerous”?

Indeed, how do I determine whether something is a “conspiracy theory” in the first place anyway?

Here’s a “conspiracy” theory

Sometimes, groups of powerful and influential individuals with vested interests get together and discuss how best to shape opinion and events in their favour

Is this a “conspiracy theory”?

If you don’t think this kind of thing happens (at many levels) then I would suggest, with absolutely the greatest of respect, that you’re a fucking moron.

To take a somewhat flippant example, would it be a conspiracy theory to suggest that football coaches and players discuss strategy, in secret, in order to shape their next game?

I’d imagine that when vaping started taking a big chunk out of Big Tobacco’s revenue there were meetings held to discuss how best to influence things to mitigate against the financial loss. If they didn’t do this, then if I were an investor, I’d be wanting to know why they weren’t.

Would it be a “conspiracy” to suggest that high-ranking Cabinet Ministers in the UK (or their counterparts in other countries) don’t discuss plans and information that is not shared with the majority of the rank and file MP’s or party members? Do groups of ‘friendly’ nations not share information and plans (obviously not all of them) when it comes to things like national security?

To suggest that all things, all strategies and plans, across the board, across all governments, organizations and industries, are always done transparently and with scrupulous openness and in a spirit of fairness, is to be so naïve as to be functionally incapacitated.

The only real difference between these (obvious and evident) attempts to shape the future which we would all recognise (perhaps) as legitimate activity and a “conspiracy theory” is one of degree; it’s about the level of reach and power and influence that is achieved.

Was “Russian interference” in the 2016 US election a thing? Probably. I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t. So what? It’s not like the US never, ever, meddles in the electoral affairs of other countries is it? That Russia decided to try to influence things so that the candidate they viewed as being more favourable to their interests was elected should not be any surprise at all; I’d be wondering what a country’s intelligence services were actually being paid for if they didn’t do this kind of thing.

We are currently being treated to what I want to call the 3 big C’s of doom; covid, climate and currency.

Although covid (the disease) is itself effectively over as a major player, its legacy is very much alive and kicking. Our whole approach to health has been rewritten. We’ll do the same idiotic things again in the event of the next ‘pandemic’, only this time the WHO will be empowered to call the shots.

There’s a uniformity of messaging surrounding the ‘climate’ that is wholly unwarranted by the actual evidence. Indeed, if you peruse that paper it’s abundantly clear that the science™ surrounding ‘climate’ is more than a little bit suspect. Did you know, for example, that the previous collection of ‘models’ known as CMIP5 (we’re on version number 6 now) got the predictions for the temperature for 1979-2016 wildly wrong in 101 out of 102 cases? I didn’t, and it was a bit of a shocker.

And this push for digital currency (which is a bit different to just having the convenience of being able to use your cash electronically) is very shady indeed. It does not benefit the end user in any material way. Its only real function is to yield a far greater degree of control over the citizenship.

There are powerful groups of people who meet up and discuss stuff. Maybe they disagree on the best course of action. We see the public face of these kinds of things with the various ‘summits’ and conferences. It really isn’t a conspiracy, but a matter of documented fact, that certain organizations (such as the WEF and the UN) advocate for more global solutions. To suggest that certain folk have a globalist agenda is not a conspiracy “theory”, it’s a conspiracy fact.

To what extent do these people have access to all the right levers of power? Are they able to push things effectively in the way they want to go?

These are the pertinent questions.

Does something only become a “conspiracy” when it is suggested these folk have more power than most people realize?

And at what point does it become dangerous to suggest that they do, indeed, have such power?

How is this dangerous? Or, more pertinently, to whom is this viewpoint dangerous?

To ignore ‘systemic’ racism, or to dismiss it as a useful concept, or to deny that someone who identifies as a woman IS a woman, are seen to be examples of dangerous ideas. But isn’t it just as much of a dangerous idea to suggest that a group of people, by virtue of their skin colour and culture, are promoting and upholding a vicious system of oppression? Why isn’t this seen as a “conspiracy” theory?

It strikes me that this kind of thinking amply justifies the use of the word conspiratorial.

Perhaps that’s a useful thing when someone next harangues you about your white privilege. Oh, I respect your viewpoint, but I don’t subscribe to that particular conspiracy theory.

I think we all need to be aware of the possibility that things are being shaped at a global level by unseen actors who have enough influence and power to do so. It’s a hypothesis that cannot be simply rejected out of hand - and there is much evidence to support this kind of notion. It’s also true that some of this evidence might also be interpreted more benignly.

Take the arguments over how much coordination and ‘conspiracy’ were involved in covid. We had the ‘evidence’ of all of the coordinated messaging with the MOTW (message of the week) being dutifully trotted out by the media. We had the build back better segment, the saving the NHS segment which morphed into the saving lives segment, followed by the vaccine passport segment (talked about very early on in the “pandemic”), with the entertaining deathbed “I wish I’d had the vaccine” segment, the horse paste segment, the nobody is safe until we’re all safe segment, the pandemic of the unvaccinated segment, the threat to our democracy segment - and so many other coordinated vignettes.

It could have all been entirely coincidental - as coincidental as suffering from myocarditis after getting injected with some experimental Pharma concoction. But my money is on the widespread coordination of this messaging at a higher level.

Somebody, somewhere, pushed the button on these things. It wasn’t an accident and it wasn’t a coincidence. The shady cabal meeting behind closed doors deciding on what’s “best” for us? You decide.

There’s a similar button being pushed now whenever someone brings up the possibility of a global agenda, pushed by an influential (but largely unspecified) group of powerful people.

This is not only a dangerous conspiracy theory - it’s also said to be anti-Semitic!!!

What’s interesting is the motivation here. It’s one thing to smear these ideas as conspiracy, or anti science, or anti vaxx, or Aunty Mabel, or something. But anti-Semitic? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Why is this button being pushed, and what are they afraid of?

If these ideas were just held, as they claim, by a tiny number of fringe weirdos who need some therapy, or to spend more time out of their basement, then they’d just be laughed off, surely?

The levels they’re prepared to go to smear these things perhaps indicate they have some power and truth they don’t wish us to know about? Once again I ask “dangerous to whom”?

Is it really dangerous to anyone but those in power if 25% of the population believe their governments are complicit in leading them down some global pathway? Where is the danger here?

I love a rollicking good “conspiracy theory”. Some are daft, some are really creative, some are intriguing. The usual crowd of censorious bastards (and I mean this in both the correct and incorrect meanings) are doing their best to stifle them. These patronising and paternalistic “superior” beings believe they know what’s best for us; here you go buttercup, I’ve curated a safe and acceptable reading experience for you.

The Queer Theorists want the world to be un-normified. They see ‘norms’ as oppressive - they just want everyone to subscribe to a new ‘norm’ represented by their way of thinking. It’s the playbook of totalitarians everywhere. Think, feel, speak and read only what we tell you to.

When someone tries to limit an idea it’s worth attempting to examine why? Why this particular idea? Who does it benefit if this idea is stifled? Who does it harm if this idea is propagated?

Of course, this pre-supposes that ideas, themselves, are harmful - rather than what we make of those ideas or do with them. I suppose it’s similar to the pro-gun lobby argument. It ain’t the gun that’s dangerous, it’s the lunatic holding it.