his role in society appears to be to take people away from the 'truth movement' and back to the establishment

The more information we have about what governments and corporations are up to the less we seem to trust them. Will conspiracy theories eventually destroy democracy?

What if I told you I had conclusive proof that the moon landings were faked, but I had been told to keep it under wraps by my BBC bosses acting under orders from the CIA, NSA and MI6. Most of you would think I had finally lost my mind.

But, for some, that scenario - a journalist working for a mainstream media organisation being manipulated by shadowy forces to keep vital information from the public - would seem entirely plausible, or even likely.

We live in a golden age for conspiracy theories. There is a growing assumption that everything we are told by the authorities is wrong, or not quite as it seems. That the truth is being manipulated or obscured by powerful vested interests.

And, in some cases, it is.

'Inside job'
"The reason we have conspiracy theories is that sometimes governments and organisations do conspire," says Observer columnist and academic John Naughton.

It would be wrong to write off all conspiracy theorists as "swivel-eyed loons," with "poor personal hygiene and halitosis," he told a Cambridge University Festival of Ideas debate.

They are not all "crazy". The difficult part, for those of us trying to make sense of a complex world, is working out which parts of the conspiracy theory to keep and which to throw away.


Conspiracy theories through the ages

Benjamin Disraeli
'Secret societies': Paranoia was rife in the 19th Century in the wake of the French revolution. British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (pictured) warned of "secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans"
Freemasons: A secret society tracing its roots back to the 14th century, freemasonry has been accused of everything from controlling the judiciary to faking the moon landings
Illuminati: Initially referred to the Bavarian Illumaniti, a secret society founded in 1776 to oppose religious influence over public life. Outlawed in 1785 but name now linked to alleged conspiracies to create New World Order
Dreyfus affair: A young artillery officer of Jewish extraction, Alfred Dreyfus, was wrongly convicted in 1894 of treason and sent to Devil's Island in a case that divided France. Nationalists believed there was a Jewish conspiracy against Catholicism
Protocols of the elders of Zion: An anti-semitic hoax supposedly describing Jewish plans for world domination. Publicised by the Nazis despite already being exposed as fraudulent
McCarthyism: Named after Senator Joseph McCarthy who led a witch-hunt against suspected communists in American public life in the first half of the 1950s


Mr Naughton is one of three lead investigators in a major new Cambridge University project to investigate the impact of conspiracy theories on democracy.

The internet is generally assumed to be the main driving force behind the growth in conspiracy theories but, says Mr Naughton, there has been little research into whether that is really the case.

He plans to compare internet theories on 9/11 with pre-internet theories about John F Kennedy's assassination.

Like the other researchers, he is wary, or perhaps that should be weary, of delving into the darker recesses of the conspiracy world.

"The minute you get into the JFK stuff, and the minute you sniff at the 9/11 stuff, you begin to lose the will to live," he told the audience in Cambridge.

Like Sir Richard Evans, who heads the five-year Conspiracy and Democracy project, he is at pains to stress that the aim is not to prove or disprove particular theories, simply to study their impact on culture and society.

Why are we so fascinated by them? Are they undermining trust in democratic institutions?

David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, the third principal investigator, is keen to explode the idea that most conspiracies are actually "cock-ups".

"The line between cock-up, conspiracy and conspiracy theory are much more blurred than the conventional view that you have got to choose between them," he told the Festival of Ideas.

"There's a conventional view that you get these conspirators, who are these kind of sinister, malign people who know what they are doing, and the conspiracy theorists, who occasionally stumble upon the truth but who are on the whole paranoid and crazy.


Sir Richard Evans: What constitutes a conspiracy theory?
"Actually the conspirators are often the paranoid and crazy conspiracy theorists, because in their attempt to cover up the cock-up they get drawn into a web in which their self-justification posits some giant conspiracy trying to expose their conspiracy.

"And I think that's consistently true through a lot of political scandals, Watergate included."

'Curry house plot'
It may also be true, he argues, of the "vicious" in-fighting and plotting that characterised New Labour's years in power, as recently exposed in the memoirs of Gordon Brown's former spin doctor Damian McBride.

The Brownite conspiracies to remove Tony Blair were "pathetically ineffectual" - with the exception of the 2006 "curry house" plot that forced Blair to name a departure date - but the picture painted by Mr McBride of a "paranoid" and "chaotic" inner circle has the ring of truth about it, he claims.

Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown was a keen student of conspiracy theories
And Mr Brown - said to be a keen student of the JFK assassination - knew a conspiracy when he saw one.

"You feel he sees conspiracies out there because he has a mindset that is not dissimilar to the conspiracy theorists," said Prof Runciman.

He is also examining whether the push for greater openness and transparency in public life will fuel, rather than kill off, conspiracy theories.

"It may be that one of the things conspiracy theories feed on as well as silence, is a surfeit of information. And when there is a mass of information out there, it becomes easier for people to find their way through to come to the conclusion they want to come to.

"Plus, you don't have to be an especial cynic to believe that, in the age of open government, governments will be even more careful to keep secret the things they want to keep secret.

"The demand for openness always produces, as well as more openness, more secrecy."

Which brings us back to the moon landings. I should state, for the avoidance of any doubt, and to kill off any internet speculation, that I am not in possession of any classified information about whether they were faked or not. My contacts at Nasa are not that good.

But then I would say that wouldn't I?

We'll have to see how he progresses before it's evident whether he's been allowed to be heard for some sneaky ulterior motive.

Why are we discussing Brands' credibility and not what he said?

oioioi wrote:
I thought the contents of what he wrote and said had been fairly well picked over already, oi? Never hurts to address credibility every now and then.

Why are we discussing Brands' credibility and not what he said?

You've probably nailed Jesus though.

feather wrote: *Reads line but doesn't really read it. Goes away and does something else. Realises what was typed*

Space Bandit wrote: Ok, I was being a bit obnoxious about the 'time phrase' sorry 'bout that space bandit & Gilly.
Now Brand, his comedy act involves 'revolution' he discusses Che Guevara ,Jesus, Malcolm X, Gandhi Now it does not really matter that the very things that those people would have stood against, is 'Russel Brand' (A mouthy little rich prick who loves shagging about, works at the MSM, who's now standing 'behind' their names, as if it gives him some type of moral authority to do so).
I'm not suggesting 'big conspiracy' I'm suggesting that Brand is playing the role of his 'messiah complex' identification character in his recent interviews, and is using AJ, DI, as props, quite why the BBC have permitted him recent broadcasting time to advertise his show I don't know?

I could see the point of him going onto a magazine show, such as 'Loose Women' or 'The Right Stuff' etc. . . As he is a 'Joker' and the atmosphere on those shows would have bid him well.
Quite why he's been on Newsnight, Question Time, and The Andrew Marr Show I don't know, It seems like all of a sudden he's 'political'.

But he's not saying anything new, nothing that most people don't already know, it's just that 'he's discussing such issues. It's not in the interest of the BBC ( The governments mouthpiece to have a revolution) is it?

Yes to a degree it is The BBC's image is much tarnished re 'Operation Yewtree'.... So let's get Russel on to discuss revolution, The BBC are well aware that if you type into your search engine issues about current affairs, child molestation, war is Syria, etc. . .that D/I's and AJ's webpages appear.
Brand is wiping away the bad publicity that has recently been exposed about the BBC & 'our' government, don't forget that Brand was working for the government during his performance at the closing ceremony at the most recent Olympics.
A ceremony where a lot of 'symbolism' has been noted.
The very fact that Brand has been engaging with Icke & Jones (two of the most staunch enemies of the BBC) and then with the BBC, should tell us all something.
.
To me the term 'messiah complex' is referring to Jones & Icke, just look at the facts, he's at the BBC (where he has worked for many years) and he's come up with the 'messiah complex' where he refers to Che Guevara ,Jesus, Malcolm X, Gandhi (and Hitler).

The reference to Hitler is in brackets on his poster, I wonder why?
The clear message that I'm getting here is here is 'don't listen to icke or Jones' they have the messiah complex. If you don't think that this type of mind control exists can I suggest that you take notice of Neil Sanders, if you don't know who he is he can be found in your search engine in 'mind control'.

This can be seen in the way that Paxman did act like Brand's bitch on the Newsnight 'interview'.
Russel Brand is media, It's all PR he's got a neat few million bucks in the bank, his role in society appears to be to take people away from the 'truth movement' and back to the establishment, I guess that's why he's been hob nobbing with icke & Jones, I guess they can both see through him but will use him to gain further exposure themselves.
Why else would there be so much fuss about a second rate comedian doing a tour,
Frankie Boyle is 'controversial' with his comments...

.....www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23389757
Most people who watch comedy that I know find Boyle to be a much better comedian than Brand.

What I'm really getting at here is that the BBC are backing Brand.

Ok, thanks for your reply Space Bandit, I can't really think of anything else to say that won't be some type of repeat of my previous comments.
I'm not sure that I disagree with Brands words, it's just that it's odd that he's consciously aware and at the same time he's an obnoxious sausage.
It 'would be a bit like Freddie Star professing to be a Buddhist monk, whilst amusing the masses with his goose stepping Hitler march.

Why are we discussing Brands' credibility and not what he said?

I think it's reasonable to remember that Brand's persona is an act. I'm sure it is a version of himself, but he accentuates certain aspects of himself to create a comic / media / entertainment persona. Just like Jim Davidson probably is a knob in real life, but he exaggerates that for the stage, and Julian Clary probably is camp, but probably not that camp. This is why they are 'performers' because they like performing, and are able to do it. It does pose the problem, though, that when you want to say something sincere it doesn't necessarily strike the right note with people.

In terms of him appearing on the BBC, they were pretty much entirely hostile to him, and the reaction from the press has been pretty much entirely hostile. The one thing I would say is that if you're going to attempt this sort of thing, then you need to be ready with facts, not generalised arguments.