This thread has taken some serious detours! Back to the OP though and I'm surprised no-one has pointed this out... I've read a fair bit of Naomi Klein (who incidentally appears on YouTube frequently); not Doppelganger, but it's on the reading list for some time soon. Much of her other work though covers topics which would in many people's eyes be considered conspiracies. So it seems rather ironic to use her latest book to appeal to conspiracists to rein it in and turn down the "alternative narrative" dial, when other books - The Shock Doctrine in particular - offer many such narratives, mainly focused around the topic of US hegemony and how its power is maintained through exploiting natural disasters, creating disasters where needed, military coups, economic genocide, neo-liberal policy, and so on.
That being said, I do think George Monbiot makes a good point about distinguishing between conspiracy theories and conspiracy fictions. He covers it in a chapter of the recent book "The Invisible Doctrine". But I just googled it too, and I found this interesting article/interview in which George (a conspiracy theorist) meets Jason Liosatos (a conspiracy fantasist). Worth a read. I think there is perhaps a centre point in which the distinction between conspiracy theories and fictions becomes blurred, showing just how subjective it all is. But I think the separation is a good one, even if some people would lump together CIA plots with Micro-chips in vaccines as from the same hymn book.
Perhaps this post is a little off topic by bring the thread back onto topic
But would be good to hear your thoughts
@Deadeye and anyone else who wants to bring it back to conspiracies
A few other points in response to other posts....
- Echo chambers. Yes, I can see how social media, YT, etc act as echo chambers and perhaps do so in the most sophisticated way by tracking your history, using algorithms, etc. But I don't think we should forget how life itself and many things in it are similarly echo chambers. Our social networks, friendship groups, family, what we choose to watch on TV, books we read or sections of a library we explore at the expense of others (in the past, if not today!), churches, etc etc. We naturally gravitate to the things which re-enforce our beliefs and identities. The priest at a Catholic church will not read from or direct you to passages from the The Vedas, as much as YouTube won't direct you to performance cars if craft making is your thing.
- Religion. On the subject of religion, it always amazes me how it gets a free pass with so many people. There will be many who denounce conspiracies on the lack of empirical evidence, who at the same time believe in God. Does something become non- conspiratorial once enough people subscribe to it, irrespective of a magical, fantastical and non-empirical basis?
- Black and White. Left and Right. There's so much evidence of stereotyping in the thread. No nuance. Everything is black and white and life's not like that and neither is this debate. It's perfectly possible to have doubts about the covid vaccine and not be a climate denier. Just as much as it's possible - as above - to only believe in peer reviewed science, yet also believe in God. There seems little or no allowance for this in the discussion, where so many attempts seem to be made to reduce it to an us and them. I think the whole "woke" thing is similar. Seems that to many you are either "woke" about everything or nothing. It's almost like the format of sport has pervaded everything where you either support one side or other. In reality though, when that player you hate from another team is playing internationally, suddenly the perspective shifts - depending on how well he/she does of course!
- Belief vs Action. One more point and I'll shut up. I find it interesting how belief and action so often don't align. You can have two people arguing passionately about the environment, and yet their actions in terms of carbon footprint, campaign work, etc. are not all too dissimilar. I wonder sometimes why what we believe in and what we do about it are often so far apart. I remember in covid times, when folk were allowed out for a local walk a day, people saying they thought it was a stupid idea, dangerous etc. but then going for said walks as they'd been told they were allowed to. Similarly, a couple of years ago I remember financially comfortable pensioners saying they thought it was stupid that the government was giving them a WFA payment when they didn't need it, but not having the conviction to give it back, donate it, or refuse it. In both cases people needed to be told what to do. How often are we likewise shoehorned into what to think?
