Of Conspiracy Theories and being at Peace

Alright, party fans! Grab your tin foil for it is time to make some hats! Oh, yes, cardboard and a pen also, then we can make some membership cards. We all know that we want to be card carrying members of the tin-hat-conspiracy-theory-brigade!

Okay, okay. Serious just for a minute – even though I was being serious.

The Zombie Apocalypse (ZA) has brought many things to the fore. I, for one, am thankful for the ZA, as it has given us a peak behind the veil. One such area of revelation has been in regard to so-called conspiracy theories and the language of dismissal and relegation.

The current world is big on terms. I am a bear of little brain, so I go for the simple. Modernism, Post-Modernism, Post-Centre-Just-before-you-missed-pre-Post-Modernism, call it what you will, it is nothing more than Modernism applied and Modernism applied is just another term for rebellion against God and His Messiah, á la Psalm 2. Modernism questioned absolute truth as a concept – thereby questioning both God’s existence and His right to determine at large –and, as a logical consequence, it was forced to question truth regarding epistemology and morality. In other words, denying the possibility of Divine revelation and basing itself in a closed system, Modernism asked, “Can we know truth and can we live truth?”

Of course, in a closed system with nothing else to appeal to, and absolutely no appetite to appeal to Scripture or the God Who authored it, truth and morality became vague, undefinable, and, in terms of Joseph Fletcher’s model, relative.  As a consequence, truth, as an absolute, has become a rare commodity in our land. Instead of truth, we have ‘the narrative’.[1]  The Narrative is the story that has been concocted for your belief and enjoyment by the powers that be (as determined by the context) and is to take absolute priority over your sense of sight.

Let us use those long dormant imaginations in order to illustrate. Ready! Imagine for a moment that you have entered a grand theatre to watch a much-anticipated play, say, a stage production of a once popular movie. As with many plays, you know that there will be a narrator, whose job it is to help you enjoy the production by filling in gaps and explaining certain sequences.

So far, so good.

Now, imagine that the play is – Oh, the excitement and anticipation! – Rambo: First Blood. Alright, anticipation has diminished somewhat, but bear with me. As the play unfolds, you realise that the narration has little to do with Rambo and has much more in common with Bambi or the Sound of Music. What you see are bullets, knives, blood, and guts. What you hear is Thumper, bouncing across a grassy meadow, frolicking about in laughter, as he plays with his friends. Maybe you hear Julie Andrews unleash in song, as the aromatherapy machine peppers you with the fragrance of edelweiss, pine tree, and fresh, snow-filled air, which combine to transport you to some remote Austrian summit.[2]

Now imagine that there is an elderly chap sitting nearby. He has seen the cinematic version of Rambo and knows the story quite well. He also happened to watch Bambi and the Sound of Music – just keeping his wife company of course; that is his story, and he is sticking to it! He is also a man of the world, as opposed to a Worldly man, so he has been to the school-of-hard-knocks and, therefore, understands a few things.

Armed with truth, the elderly man protests, stating that the audience is being hoodwinked, for he knows that the official narrative being aired is most definitely not the narrative that goes with the play on the stage. He then cites several authorities who had a similar experience in a theatre owned by the same people. Not only this, but another elderly chap remembers when the theatre owner’s grandfather pulled the same stunt, many years before.

At this point, the ushers come in, on behalf of management, in an attempt to try and calm this gentleman down. First, they start with charm and flattery. However, the old man has seen that tactic a few more times than he cares to remember and sticks to his guns.

Looking around, after hearing some murmurs, it is becoming obvious to the ushers that some are awakened from their aromatherapy-induced stupor and are beginning to listen to the elderly man with intent. As the murmurs grow, fearing a mass walkout or, worse, a mass demand for a refund, the theatre owners themselves arrive on the scene and begin to marginalise, dismiss, and relegate through their use of language. They say things like, ‘Oh you again! You’re that man that lives amongst the disreputables in that territory!’[3] They dismiss: “Of course this is the right soundtrack and narrative. Our very own Chief Narrative Officer has checked the science and there are no signs of dubbing!”[4] Then they relegate: “Oh, guys like you and your conspiracy theories. Who has ever heard of such a ridiculous thing?[5] Anyone, who believes that would have to be a full-blown whack job!”[6] Now the other theatre goers, feeding off the owners’ comments, begin to taunt and mock the old man. Some may feel inwardly sorry for this gentleman, but they are not going to stand against their peers or risk looking silly. These understand that in Modernity, image is everything.

With the old man successfully ostracised – first and foremost, mentally in the minds of the crowd, and second, with the old man being physically ejected from the theatre – all the other parties turn back to the play and settle in for the duration. Do they have doubts? Of course, but they do not want to be called “dumb”. They do not want to share the old man’s fate – even if he was right! Thus, they acquiesce and capitulate, and thereby make themselves willing pawns of and for the theatre owners, even though they despise them in their hearts.

Settled in their seats, all these other players become accomplices with the theatre owner’s crime and deceit – even though they too are victims of it –  and thereby prove themselves to be foolish; for not one of them took out their phone and started researching.[7] One Google search – at least until the fact checkers got to it! – would have proven that there were indeed previous fraudulent activities of this sort, perpetrated by none other than the current owner’s grandfather. They could have looked at a streaming service and seen parts of the movie for themselves and verified that the derided, elderly gentleman was correct. Yet, they chose not to exercise their faculties.[8] Why? Partly because of fear, but mostly because of comfort. If they found out that they were being hoodwinked, then they would have to make an informed decision on the matter. They would have to choose a course of action. They would have to unleash or ignore their conscience. At present, in their comfortable ignorance, they are simply instruments or accomplices (akin to a getaway driver in a robbery).  Yet, if they informed themselves, they would be forced to stand up with and for the elderly chap or they would be forced to be complicit (plan and take part in the heist) with the owners in some way.

The nett result is that the other patrons, seeking to be neutral, sink back into their seats, refocus their attention on the narrative, and drink deeply of the poisoned well set before them, and this for two main reasons. First, they have just witnessed the extent of the intimidation and harassment that the owners are willing to use against any opposition, even when that opposition has credibility. Second, the average Joe does not want to be labelled as ‘a dummy’ and he certainly does not desire to be stigmatised, marginalised, and relegated to the backwaters of the societal swamp. In short, Joe Avg wishes to be considered as a respectable citizen by his peers and so he will go with the flow!

With our little analogy complete, we realise that we have not exactly proved anything, yet! At this juncture, we simply hope that you can see some similarities with what has happened during the ZA. When facts do not match the narrative; when your sense of sight disagrees with the narrative being spewed into your ears; when dissenting voices, no matter how eminently qualified, are dismissed; when long held mores and principles, deemed essential in every other circumstance, are ignored; when certain statistical evidences are overlooked, fudged, or disregarded, then we are right to ask, “Why this incongruous narrative? Is there a conspiracy afoot?”

To understand conspiracy theories, we need to understand something of what they are and are not. For example, not every conspiracy involves Pinky and the Brain plotting nightly to take over the world.[9] Neither should this be excluded—well, maybe with the exception of Pinky and the Brain. The conspiracy may involve a workplace situation. It may involve housing. It may involve Church life. From there it can progress to bigger matters. Political policy. Government contracts and contractors. The list is endless.

Of equal importance, we need to grasp the essence and meaning of a conspiracy. Looking at a dictionary definition, we see that a conspiracy is simply a ‘plot’ to do something ‘illegal or harmful’. Entangled in this meaning is an implication that such a plot is a secret – this being “the bit” that tends to ‘bunch panties’ and cause ‘shirts to disrobe the wearer’ – yet this is not necessarily the case. Think here, as one Australian, political example, of the pledge to put more women into parliament. This is a conspiracy. It is a plot and a ploy. It is not motivated by a desire to have the best man for the job, but, rather, to be in concord with the feminist movement’s demands. It is illegal, for it is active discrimination based on sex. I would even argue that, based on Biblical principle, it is harmful, but that will have to wait for another time. Consequently, the achievement of this outcome means that party room policy votes must be biased, if not rigged. It means exactly that when it comes to the preselection of candidates – I mean, we cannot hang a shingle out the front with the words, “No men need apply until we have filled the female quota!” – thus the preselection ballots must be manipulated. For all this, note that the plot is not a secret.[10]

Therefore, an openly stated political goal can be a plot and a conspiracy, precisely because it seeks to subvert and indeed, by necessity, means that laws must be broken and or ignored for the plot to be realised. Even if laws are not broken, as such, moral concepts of transparency, equity, justice, and fairness are certainly put to the sword. From a Christian standpoint, then, a conspiracy can be any political policy or programme that seeks to subvert or move away from God’s ordained standard.

As Christians are often perplexed by the idea of conspiracies, let’s cut to the chase in order to prove the point: Are Conspiracies real? Yep. Sure are!

1. Psalm 2:1-3 – Why are the nations in an uproar … the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand … the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed: “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!”
2. Psalm 21:1 – Though they intended evil against Thee, and devised a plot, they will not succeed.
3. Psalm 37:12 – The wicked plots against the righteous, And gnashes at him with his teeth.
4. Genesis 37:18 – When they saw him from a distance and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death.
5. Esther 2:22-23 & 8:3 – In those days … Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king’s officials from those who guarded the door, became angry and sought to lay hands on King Ahasuerus. But the plot became known to Mordecai, and he told Queen Esther, and Esther informed the king in Mordecai’s name. Now when the plot was investigated and found to be so, they were both hanged on a gallows; … Then Esther spoke again to the king, fell at his feet, wept, and implored him to avert the evil scheme of Haman the Agagite and his plot which he had devised against the Jews.
6. Matthew 22:15 – Then the Pharisees went and counseled together how they might trap Him in what He said.
7. Matthew 26:3-5 – Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth, and kill Him.
8. Acts 9:23-24 – And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Saul. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death.
9. Acts 23:12-13 – And when it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul … there were more than forty who formed this plot.
10. John 11:53 & 12:10-11 – So from that day on they planned together to kill Him … But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus to death also; because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus.

These texts are a sampling from Scripture and show us the basic Biblical perspectives on this topic. Psalm 37 states it plainly, “The wicked plot against the righteous.” This is a statement of fact. We see that conspiracies are as simple as “catching someone with their own words” or complicated enough to involve “forty who take an oath.” The result of the conspiracy could be as straightforward as humiliating your opponent (catching with words) or it can be as significant as dispatching your opponent (a plot to kill). No matter what the means or the outcome, the Bible tells us clearly that conspiracies are real and that they are the tool of jealous and wicked men.

Therefore, wear your tin hats and carry your cards with pride, for you stand on solid Biblical ground!

What to do!

Alrighty! Now we must deal with the more difficult details. If conspiracies are real and I must believe they are real, on account of the Bible telling me they are real, how do I respond to these pesky little critters? Do we grasp our butts and kiss them goodbye? Do we flail about on the spot, like a man trying to run in every direction at once? Do we act like the king of old, by going white as a sheet, freaking out, going limp, and then joining in with the rhythm section as we keep the beat with our knocking knees?[11]

No! Nyet! No way, man!

As with all things, Scripture is our source and to Scripture we must return.

If we review the texts given above, those proving the reality of conspiracies, we will see that they also provide answers.

The first response is found in no lesser place than the very mouth of God. Upon hearing and witnessing the conspirators’ plans, the Lord does not fret; He scoffs and laughs.[12] Understand well, please, the scene presented to us is not one in which Father is to be viewed as a cosmic “Santa clause” shaking his head at a child’s request whilst having a good belly-laugh. No. Not even close. Father’s response is a derisive laughter. It is to scoff at the claims of the usurpers.

The second response is to be found in a close study of Psalm 37 itself. The very first verse tells us, “Do not fret!” Verse three tells us to, “trust in Yahweh”. Verse four tells us to, “delight in Yahweh.” Verse five instructs us to, “commit our way to Yahweh”. By contrast, verses fourteen and fifteen assure us that the wicked will get their comeuppance – they will fall victim to their very own schemes.

The third response, a more human response, is “speak up!” We see that in the book of Esther, as well as in Paul’s case, the plot was uncovered and, being evil in nature, it was rightly laid bare before the world.

Here, then, in the proverbial ‘nutshell’, is the Bible’s take on “Conspiracy Theories”. Yes, such theories are real. We would, therefore, be foolish to walk around as though such things did not exist. However, as Yahweh and His Messiah occupy the throne, we would be foolish to allow these theories to stop us from living faithful and obedient lives.

The only difficulty, in today’s world, is telling a Conspiracy Theory from a Crackpot Theory.

Crackpot Theory, Narrative, and Truth:

Okey dokey, MythBusters; tin hats on, cards in hand, and, as the intro to Sweet’s, Ballroom Blitz says, “Alright fellas, let’s go!”

We need to put a few sentences here to tie things together and to bring a bit of clarity.

We have argued for the reality of conspiracy theories and, in this context, warned you about the “narrative” as we slide further and further from truth. These threads may seem unrelated, but they are in fact woven together into one tapestry.

Starting with the Conspiracy Theory, we need to understand that there was a time when this held hands with the Crackpot Theory. As Doug Wilson rightly pointed out, a conspiracy theory once went along the lines of, ‘the Queen is the head of some universal, dark order’. Another theme would have been to posit that Aliens existed or that we were in fact created by aliens. To believe or to posit such a thing, would see you labelled as a Conspiracy Theorist, with the subtitle, “Crackpot! Beware!” closely appended. Thus, the appellation, Conspiracy Theorist, strongly called forth and conjured all the negative connotations of the Crackpot Theorist. Hence, Conspiracy Theorist was the polite term of derision, whereby your opponent or competitor was discredited by your subtle implication that he is nothing more than an escapee from the local asylum or loony bin.

So far so good; we hope!

The next point to make is an obvious one: please, remember, that these terms came to the fore in a time when people, individually and societally, believed in absolute truth! You see, people were subtly discredited when they spoke falsehoods, as a generalisation, when absolute truth was held dear, valued, and served as a paradigm. Thus, theories that contradicted Scripture, logic, and the empirical world, were, rightly discredited. (Remember, these are generalisations). To illustrate, simply look at all the gender nonsense that is about today. If we went back to the battlefields of WW2, could you imagine a soldier walking up to his CO and asking for a different slit trench to be dug and this on the basis that this chap identified as a chapette or a chapit! Classic example? How did Corporal Klinger comport himself on the television series MASH? In that era, dressing as a woman was to be considered “loony” and reason enough for a ticket home.

This said, let us apply this point to the current situation, our elderly man, and the theatre setting.

Today we do not believe in absolute truth. Instead, we have the narrative. This narrative is constructed to an end and should be perceived as an elaborate advertising campaign – only with sharp, nasty teeth – which seeks to sell you on a point, an ideology, or a concept that generally goes against the grain. This is particularly the case in an age of ideological transition.

What has become apparent is – and “Boy!” is it a lesson that we are slow to learn – that all the “L”[13] types either force ideological change or harness the ideological vacuum for change by speaking the language of the old ideology, yet, at the same time, either filling these terms with new meaning or by applying the term to a different category of people.[14] An example of this would be the theological Liberals using the term atonement. Seems right. Seems good. Until you see them write the term as ‘at-one-ment’; the term no longer having anything to do with the word ‘atone’ and everything to do with a personally derived peace and the satisfaction of self.[15] In this example, both meaning and subject are changed.

Relating this principle to the topic before us, we must realise that the term Conspiracy Theorist is now applied, not to the one who believes fantasy over truth (old ideology), but to the one who believes truth over narrative (new ideology). This sleight of hand is used frequently, and to great effect, in times of ideological transition. This happens precisely because the populace generally does not realise that they are in a transitional phase and, thus, continue to assign terms and apply meanings that were established and defined under the old ideology.

Applying this to our analogy above, and doing so in terms of the old ideology, we see that the theatre goers silenced and subdued the elderly gentlemen because he was labelled as a conspiracy theorist and, by implication, a crackpot. The theatre goers responded in terms of the old ideology. Truth mattered (reality). Leaders (theatre owners) had integrity and so they (the populace) backed their leaders.[16] The elderly man (lie spreader) had to be banished for the sake and welfare of society. This is the Biblical pattern. This is the true and correct response. However, this is the old ideology!

The new ideology does not believe in truth, save as a word to purvey a concept in which it does not believe; it believes in manipulation and narrative. The new ideology, and those who wield it, deliberately manipulate the populace by using the old terms, yet with a distinctively different meaning or application. In our analogy, the people should have checked the facts (truth). They should have then reacted in an identical fashion, for this is what truth and the old ideology demands. However, in doing their research, they would have aimed their jeers, not at the elderly man, but at their leaders. They would have derided their leaders and exonerated the old man, precisely because their research would inform them, factually, that their leaders were now the lie spreaders and that they were being deceived. It would show, ultimately, that their leaders were the conspirators and crackpots because they were the ones who were, in fact, standing against the truth and spreading lies.

We, therefore, must comprehend that we are in an age of ideological transition. Atheistic Humanism wants Jesus’ throne. Consequently, be on guard! These manipulators will talk to you in the old language[17] – precisely because it is God’s language and they still desire to be as gods – but they will not be pointing you to the eternal God of the universe, His Law, His order, or, most importantly, His Son.

When you speak God’s truth over and against the narrative, you will be labelled, ostracised, and marginalised. You will be called a Conspiracy Theorist, with a very clear overtone of … Crack … pot! This will happen because truth beats narrative every time. Truth can stand up to scrutiny and indeed welcomes it.[18] This happens because God is truth; He is the revealer of truth, He is the standard of truth and all opposition to truth comes from Satan, the liar and murderer.[19]

The conclusion of the matter: We are in a war and our opponents, being without truth, must, of necessity, be spin doctors, propagandists, and narrative constructors. This will include labels that attempt to marginalise God’s people in particular.

Therefore, believe with all your heart in the reality of Conspiracy Theories; use Godly wisdom to discern the times (conspiracy v crackpot), then let your heart be at peace for Jesus reigns and our weapons are divinely appointed for the destruction of fortresses (Atheistic Humanism) and every evil thing (Conspiracy theories and narratives) raised against the knowledge of Jesus.

---

Footnotes:

[1] This article is directed at the Zombie Apocalypse and the farcical narratives strung out for our enjoyment. However, this holds true as a general principle. For example, Fletcher’s situation ethics is, though using different terminology, based upon the narrative being told. The legitimising of the outcome is based upon the narrative presented. Thus, the “moral” perspective that holds sway is governed by the best storyteller.

[2] Of course, it is equally possible that you are watching Bambi and the narrative is that of Rambo. The point is that the visual reality before your eyes in no way matches the commentary you are hearing. For example, BLM riots end in conflagration (what you see), yet the narrative says, “mostly peaceful”. Canadian truckers mount one of the most peaceful and courteous protests of all time (what you see), yet the narrative would have you believe that they are vitriolic, axe wielding, spleen venting, maniacal villains who threaten the fabric of society the world over. Indeed, the pathetic Prime Minister of Canada, in one speech, ran out of words ending in -phobia, so bent was he on discrediting these truckers. One wonders if he has not commissioned some writers to invent a few more -phobia terms so that he can unleash another tirade. (Postscript: The writers were obviously too slow. The fool has introduced emergency powers. How to prove you are not a tyrant – crush a peaceful protest by force of arms. What this really shows is that the Truckers have won! Truckers 1 – Trudeau 0!)

[3] “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

[4] “What sign do you give that we may believe?”

[5] “You who killed the prophets and stone those sent to her.”

[6] Sorry to break the Biblical theme: Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names? … Names will crush me like a bulldozer dropped on me from a great height!

[7] “Have you not read the Scriptures …?”

[8] At one point during the Zombie Apocalypse, we had a conversation with a business owner. Certain things were stated on her part. We countered and pointed them to certain documentation. Their response: “Are you a medical person?” This line had two purposes. First, it could infer that I do not understand medical thingy-whatsits because I am not a medical person. Second, it could point to the fact that the only input this person received was from the State media. Our response was the same regardless – we can read and do research!

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvAYwpUDv8

[10] Direct correlations can be drawn with this statement from President Joe Biden in regard to a Scotus nomination: “Whilst I have been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decision except one: the person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity, and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue, in my view. I made that commitment during the campaign for President, and I will keep that commitment.” Now, out of all that waffle, what is the focal point and the take home message? Equality? Best man for the job? A fair go for all? No, not even close. What is being said is this: I, President Joe have decided that the nominee will be female and have lots of melanin in her skin! Qualifications? Not important. Writings? Not important. Integrity? Not important. Let’s spice it up a bit, shall we, and go feral anti-PC! If you have median to little melanin in your skin, regardless of your gender, do not apply! If you have a dingle dangle, third leg, or stem on the apple, do not apply. Biden thinks he is rendering great service, as do our Australian politicians, however, in reality, they are rendering the greatest disservice possible, for what they are actually saying is: This person or class of people can never succeed on their own and on the basis of their own merit. They can only succeed if we manipulate the outcome or level the playing field artificially (read: Cheat)!—and all this is fair, equitable, just, and the righting of wrongs?

[11] Daniel 5:6.

[12] Psalm 2:4 & 37:13.

[13] Lefties, Liberals, Libertines etc.

[14] If you want some more concrete examples, watch a few nights of Sky News and note these so-called right-wing commentators shaking their heads at the current lunacy. These people are like a dog with a toffee – mouths going up and down, whilst they salivate uncontrollably, yet for all that motion, little gain is made. They perceive that thing are changing, and not for the better. They wish to see the old days return. However, these people are completely conflicted. Their objections come from the old ideology (God’s morality); yet they accept so many premises of the new ideology (atheistic humanism) and adopt them as legitimate (gender issues, absolute right of personal choice etc) and then wonder why things are out of control. It is akin to having a sewing machine that has a razor blade attached behind the needle, so that as you sow, you also cut.

[15] Another example would be the long held and orthodox use of the word contained. Several confessions speak of God’s Word being contained in Scripture, just as water is contained, in an absolute sense, in a bucket. The Liberals came along as said, ‘Yes, God’s word is contained in Scripture as water is contained (relatively) in a bucket.’ In other words, not all the water in the bucket came from the same tap or source. We therefore have to apply ourselves to the task of discovering what water is truly God’s and what is otherwise.

[16] In one discussion on FB, one respondent stated, “If we cannot trust our government, who can we trust.”

[17] It is an election year. Wait for the speeches and you will hear the lies. They will govern for everyone! How so? They will do what is “right”. They will do the “best thing” for the country. They will spend, spend, spend, but they will not change their ideology, so their money – oops, sorry, our money – will not change anything.

[18] Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 3:3-6; Proverbs 12:17-19; Proverbs 23:23; Proverbs 29:14.

[19] John 8:44.