For the purposes of this exercise though it is not necessary to articulate the mind-bending complexities of the experiment. What Orlov simply suggests is that Schrà ¶dinger has presented us with an allegorical means whereby we might postulate something similar about various conspiracy theories and the shape and form they assume in the realm of political space. He submits that whilst physical objects within that political space are far too large to give rise to the parallel universes of quantum physics, "the narratives they give rise to are not". This he says is because the narratives in question
"... are a matter of perception, and there can be historical periods, such as the present one, when the peephole through which the political establishment and the mainstream media allow us to see the world becomes so tiny that it becomes a toss-up as to whether or not any given photon will manage to find its way through it. Here, reality becomes fractured into parallel universes as soon as we make the realization that we are being lied to" [my emphasis].
Orlov, to underscore his point, asks some pertinent questions about any number of theories that permeate the zeitgeist. Was Al Qaeda active in Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks? Were there weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq? As he observes, the 'reality' presented to us at the time has since been proven to be out-and-out lies. This reality of course is "now known to be factual -- uncontested, commonplace knowledge." Indeed, we might opine this is a "slam-dunk" reality! But at the time, well, that's another story altogether. Just ask George W Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell! Or then CIA Director George Tenet.
Orlov goes even further by questioning all manner of events from 9/11 itself to the Boston Marathon bombing to the Charlie Hebdo massacre to the Russian "invasion" of the Ukraine to the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH-17. After asking if we then "... make the arbitrary leap of judgment and declare that that's all the lies we will have ever been told, or do we admit the possibility that this is only the tip of an iceberg of lies, that lying is a modus operandi for the operatives behind them?", he continues his rhetorical interrogation:
"If we do, then, to be conservative, for every official narrative we must construct one or more unofficial but also plausible (and perhaps much more plausible) narratives. Each of them constitutes a parallel universe, and we can't know which of them we inhabit until some happy accident -- a leak, an investigation, a damning bit of physical evidence, or an outright admission of complicity or guilt -- collapses the probability waveform, destroying all the parallel universes but the real one."
Both Pigden's thesis and Orlov's blog piece should be read in their entirety to be fully appreciated. Although they appear to share several similar premises and conclusions, they are each in their own way unique, yet complementary, eminently readable, and both deliver a more nuanced understanding of conspiracy theorizing and the rationale behind it.
Don't be a (Walking) Dead Cat
There is much to savour individually and collectively in both pieces then for those already inclined to be suspicious of official explanations of key events. For those who pooh-pooh conspiracy theories and narratives on the one hand (but retain something of an open mind sufficient to allow that aforementioned "photon" the get through), much the same can be said. Even for those who consider themselves already converted will find much within in both cases to enable you to argue your case more effectively the next time someone dismisses you as "just another conspiracy nutter." And that can't be a bad thing now, can it?
And for the die-hard 'walking dead', those who reject outright the conspiracy construct despite all evidence to the contrary? Well there be slim pickings in these pieces! For his part Orlov, after "piling bits of puzzling evidence upon other bits of puzzling evidence", he finally rests his case in the respect with the following "simple, basic point":
"... if you insist on ignoring all the obvious lies you've been told for years and years and dismiss everything but the official narrative as a 'conspiracy theory', then that makes you something of a mind control victim. And I don't want you to be a victim. One last thing: if you find yourself living in a Schrà ¶dinger box, do what you can to avoid ending up dead. I'll leave it up to you to work out the details of that, but the hint is simple: your likelihood of ending up dead is higher if you believe in lies. Don't be a dead cat."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).