Germany says Nord Stream attacks may be 'false flag' to smear Ukraine
Wed, March 8, 2023
By Sabine Siebold and Andrew Gray
STOCKHOLM, March 8 (Reuters) - German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius on Wednesday warned against reaching premature conclusions on who was responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, suggesting the attack could also have been a "false flag" operation to blame Ukraine.
Pistorius was speaking after a New York Times report, citing intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials, said a pro-Ukrainian group may be behind the blasts that became a flashpoint between the West and Russia after last year's Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The report, while not pointing to any official Ukrainian involvement, comes at a time when Kyiv is urging its Western allies to ramp up supplies of high-end weapons to drive back Russian forces as the war enters its second year.
Investigations are ongoing as to what caused the Nord Stream pipelines, supplying Russian energy to Europe, to rupture and spew bubbles of natural gas into the Baltic Sea last September. Western countries believe the explosions were deliberate but have not concluded who was behind them.
Russia, which has previously blamed the West, seized on the news on Wednesday to demand a transparent investigation in which it also wants to participate.
A separate report by Germany's ARD broadcaster and Zeit newspaper on Tuesday said German authorities were able to identify the boat used for the sabotage operation. It said a group of five men and one woman, using forged passports, rented a yacht from a Poland-based company owned by Ukrainian citizens, but the nationality of the perpetrators was unclear.
"We have to make a clear distinction whether it was a Ukrainian group, whether it may have happened at Ukrainian orders, or a pro-Ukrainian group (acting) without knowledge of the government. But I am warning against jumping to conclusions," Pistorius said on the sidelines of a summit in Stockholm.
Pistorius said earlier the likelihood was "equally high" that it could have been a "false flag operation staged to blame Ukraine".
Citing Germany's federal prosecutor, the ntv broadcaster said German investigators had raided a ship in January suspected of involvement but there was no reliable information on perpetrators or motives.
UKRAINE PLAYS DOWN CONCERNS
The New York Times said there was no evidence that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy or other Ukrainian government officials had played any role in the attacks.
At the same summit in Stockholm, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said the media reports were a "little bit strange" and had "nothing to do" with the Ukrainian government.
"It's like a compliment for our special forces," he joked. "But this is not our activity."
Reznikov said he was not worried about the prospect of the media reports weakening support for Ukraine. Pistorius batted away a similar question about Western support as "hypothetical".
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested the media reports were a coordinated bid to divert attention and questioned how U.S. officials could assume anything about the attacks without an investigation.
"The very least that the Nord Stream shareholder countries and the United Nations must demand is an urgent, transparent investigation with the participation of everyone who can shed light," Peskov said.
The U.S. intelligence review suggested those who carried out the attacks opposed Russian President Vladimir Putin "but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation", the New York Times wrote.
"Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two. U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved," according to the New York Times report.
Investigators founds traces of explosives on the yacht, which the group took from Rostock, Germany, on Sept. 6, according to ARD and Zeit. They also reported that intelligence indicated that a pro-Ukrainian group could be behind the attack, but German authorities have not yet found any evidence.
Reuters could not independently verify the information.
Russia last month gave the U.N. Security Council a draft resolution which - if adopted - would ask U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to establish an international, independent investigation into the attack. (Reporting by Sabine Siebold, Andrew Gray, Lidia Kelly, Mark Trevelyan, Riham Alkousaa, Kirsti Knolle; Writing by Matthias Williams; Editing by Nick Macfie)
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query FALSE FLAG. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query FALSE FLAG. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, March 08, 2023
Saturday, June 24, 2023
‘Classic False Flag’: Analyst on Fox News Says Putin ‘Orchestrated’ Wagner Coup to Make Biden Think Russia’s No Threat
Jun 24th, 2023,
Fox News guest Rebekah Koffler claimed during an interview with host Eric Shawn on Saturday that Russian President Vladimir Putin worked with Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin to stage the recent armed coup as a “classic false flag.”
Over the last 24 hours, chaos has upended the military and political establishment in Russia after Prigozhin marched his paramilitary group from Ukraine into Russia, taking over two cities and marching his men toward Moscow. In a sudden turn of events, however, Prigozhin reportedly called off the armed coup after negotiations with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko.
The rebellion represented the largest existential threat to Putin’s regime since he took control of Russia over twenty years ago.
Koffler, an intelligence analyst, claimed during a long-winded nine-minute rant on Fox News that Putin orchestrated the coup to boost his political power in the Russia.
“My intelligence analysis suggests, Eric, that this is a classic false flag operation that’s been orchestrated by Putin and Prigozhin,” Koffler told the cable news host. “Prigozhin is not a stupid man. He’s a highly intelligent formerly convict. He turned his life around from a prisoner to a hot dog stands owner to the owner of a multi-million catering business that served the Kremlin, including Putin himself.”
Koffler notes that the Wagner group 50,000 men in Ukraine while Putin’s National Guard, created in 2016 to put down social unrest, has 340,000 men enlisted into the group and the Wagner forces were being tracked every minute” by the Russian security service.
“So again, what has changed from this in the last few hours? All of a sudden he decided to turn his troops around and made this deal? No, this is all staged,” she added. The analyst then appeared to claim that Putin used the rebellion to boost the mobilizations of recruits for the military.
“Putin wants us to believe that he’s weak, that there’s an ongoing threat of a military insurrection,” Koffler claims. “So this is a pretext to declare martial law, which Putin has already done. He made an amendment today that anybody who is violating the martial law is going to be imprisoned for 30 days. Another very interesting and revealing point is that Putin just authorized that men with a criminal record can join the military.”
“So this is a justification for extra mobilization of the Russian forces to send them to the meat grinder in Ukraine. It is also to demonstrate to President Biden that, no, Russia is not a threat. Russia is actually, you know, involved in its own domestic turmoil. But this is all a classic distraction and classic Putin,” she said.
“What you’re describing is like three dimensional chess. That’s a type of thinking that is just beyond,” Shawn said in response to Koffler.
Near the end of her interview, Koffler predicted that Putin will remain in power and potentially used the coup to get rid of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.
“In the meantime, Putin is going to gain momentum, mobilize additional personnel, and re-energize his offensive on Ukraine,” she concluded.
OK WHICH IS IT?
Fox host floats conspiracy theory that either U.S. or NATO is behind attempted Russian rebellion
Ray Hartmann
June 24, 2023,
Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy (Photo: Screen capture)
Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy tossed out an evidence-free conspiracy theory today that perhaps the U.S., NATO or both were behind the apparent coup unfolding in Russia.
One of Campos-Duffy’s takers was K.T. McFarland, a key aide to scandal-ridden Michael Flynn during the early years of the Trump administration. Campos-Duffy began by saying that she no longer trusted the government on foreign affairs.
“I’m always questioning things. I asked our last guest on this subject, Rebeka Koffler on this topic, if she thought it was possible that we could be behind this attempted coup with the Wagner group, and she said it’s definitely one of the possibilities or NATO.”
McFarlane responded: “I think she’s right that the United States government –whether it’s been actively or behind the scenes – has been very involved in Ukraine Russia all the time.”
The video player is currently playing an ad.
Journalist Ben Smith mused on Twitter, “Fox and Friends host Rachel Campos-Duffy cheerfully floating the theory that Prigozhin is working for the US/NATO.”
That prompted former Rep. Adam Kinzinger to offer this concise analysis.
“No, he isn’t. This is nuts.’
Ray Hartmann is a St. Louis-based journalist with nearly 50 years experience as a publisher, TV show panelist, radio host, daily newspaper reporter and columnist. He founded St. Louis alt weekly, The Riverfront Times, at the age of 24.
Wagner Boss planning coup against Putin? Ex-Russian commander's chilling warning | Report
3 weeks ago
#wagner #putin #igor
Russia’s ex commander Igor Girkin has claimed that Wagner military group chief Yevgeniy Prigozhin is planning a ‘mutiny’ against Kremlin. This comes just days after the Wagner group left from Bakhmut. Watch to know more
MEANWHILE ON MSNBC THE SPECULATION IS ALSO RIFE
Russian citizens' reaction to Wagner rebellion could set the stage for a coup: retired U.S. general
Tom Boggioni
June 24, 2023,
Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures during a ceremony, marking the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow, June 22, 2023 in Moscow, Russia. (Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)
Appearing on MSNBC on Saturday morning after Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner paramilitary group, launched what appears to be a revolt against Russian President Vladimir Putin, a retired U.S general suggested all eyes should be on how the Russian populace reacts to what could turn into a coup.
Speaking with MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart, (Ret) Lt. Gen. Stephen Twitty, the former Deputy Commander of the U.S. European Command, suggested all the elements that could lead to a coup are present as Wagner troops are reportedly moving north and Putin faces the greatest crisis of his life.
"Is what we are watching the beginnings of a coup in Russia?" the MSNBC host prompted.
"I wouldn't say that at this point in time," Twitty carefully replied. "Of course a coup, you don't see the military at this point in time trying to gain control of the seat of power in Russia."
"So Putin still firmly has control of the seat of power there and his administration is firmly in control at this particular point," he added before continuing, "I do see this more as a mutiny and, again, we will see if this thing gets ground swell from two locations. Number one, the Russian civilians. That is what we should be watching for: will the support start to turn in favor of the Wagner Group versus Putin."
"And number two, whether we start to get the groundswell of support from the western military favoring the Wagner Group," he added. "If that starts to happen, then we can start to look and determine whether or not we are in a coup situation here."
Watch below or at the link.
Tom Boggioni
June 24, 2023,
Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures during a ceremony, marking the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow, June 22, 2023 in Moscow, Russia. (Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)
Appearing on MSNBC on Saturday morning after Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner paramilitary group, launched what appears to be a revolt against Russian President Vladimir Putin, a retired U.S general suggested all eyes should be on how the Russian populace reacts to what could turn into a coup.
Speaking with MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart, (Ret) Lt. Gen. Stephen Twitty, the former Deputy Commander of the U.S. European Command, suggested all the elements that could lead to a coup are present as Wagner troops are reportedly moving north and Putin faces the greatest crisis of his life.
"Is what we are watching the beginnings of a coup in Russia?" the MSNBC host prompted.
"I wouldn't say that at this point in time," Twitty carefully replied. "Of course a coup, you don't see the military at this point in time trying to gain control of the seat of power in Russia."
"So Putin still firmly has control of the seat of power there and his administration is firmly in control at this particular point," he added before continuing, "I do see this more as a mutiny and, again, we will see if this thing gets ground swell from two locations. Number one, the Russian civilians. That is what we should be watching for: will the support start to turn in favor of the Wagner Group versus Putin."
"And number two, whether we start to get the groundswell of support from the western military favoring the Wagner Group," he added. "If that starts to happen, then we can start to look and determine whether or not we are in a coup situation here."
Watch below or at the link.
Saturday, January 09, 2021
Decoding the extremist symbols and groups at the Capitol Hill insurrection
Flags, signs and symbols of racist, white supremacist and extremist groups were displayed along with Trump 2020 banners and American flags at Wednesday's riot at the US Capitol.
Flags, signs and symbols of racist, white supremacist and extremist groups were displayed along with Trump 2020 banners and American flags at Wednesday's riot at the US Capitol.
© CNN Illustrations/Jim Urquhart/Reuters
The pictures tell part of the story of the beliefs of some of those who chose to show up on that day -- from passionate and peaceful Trump supporters to extremists who showed their hate with their symbols as well as their actions.
The mixing of the groups is one issue that experts who track extremism and hate have long been concerned about.
The certification of the election results proved to be exactly the type of event that brought together various groups and could have led to radical ideas being shared, they say. The initial event, which was heavily promoted and encouraged by President Trump, gave all of these groups something to rally around.
"This was an event designed to oppose the results of a free and fair democratic election and the transition of power that would naturally follow," Mark Pitcavage, a historian and expert in extremism with the Anti-Defamation League said.
The pictures tell part of the story of the beliefs of some of those who chose to show up on that day -- from passionate and peaceful Trump supporters to extremists who showed their hate with their symbols as well as their actions.
The mixing of the groups is one issue that experts who track extremism and hate have long been concerned about.
The certification of the election results proved to be exactly the type of event that brought together various groups and could have led to radical ideas being shared, they say. The initial event, which was heavily promoted and encouraged by President Trump, gave all of these groups something to rally around.
"This was an event designed to oppose the results of a free and fair democratic election and the transition of power that would naturally follow," Mark Pitcavage, a historian and expert in extremism with the Anti-Defamation League said.
© CNN Illustrations/Samuel Corum/Getty Images
CNN spoke with him to identify the symbols and understand the chilling messages of tyranny, white supremacy, anarchy, racism, anti-Semitism and hatred they portray.
Noose and gallows
While a noose on its own is often used as a form of racial intimidation, Pitcavage says he believes in this context the gallows were to suggest punishment for committing treason. "It is suggesting that representatives and senators who vote to certify the election results, and possibly Vice President Pence, are committing treason and should be tried and hanged," he explains.
That treason rhetoric was seen on right-wing message boards in days leading up to the event.
Three Percenters flag
CNN spoke with him to identify the symbols and understand the chilling messages of tyranny, white supremacy, anarchy, racism, anti-Semitism and hatred they portray.
Noose and gallows
While a noose on its own is often used as a form of racial intimidation, Pitcavage says he believes in this context the gallows were to suggest punishment for committing treason. "It is suggesting that representatives and senators who vote to certify the election results, and possibly Vice President Pence, are committing treason and should be tried and hanged," he explains.
That treason rhetoric was seen on right-wing message boards in days leading up to the event.
Three Percenters flag
© CNN Illustrations/Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
 |
The Three Percenters (also known as III%ers, 3%ers or Threepers) are part of the militia movement in the United States and are anti-government extremists, according to the ADL.© CNN Illustrations/Brendan Gutenschwager
Like others in the militia movement, Three Percenters view themselves as defending the American people against government tyranny.
"Because many adherents to the militia movement strongly support President Trump, in recent years, Three Percenters have not been as active in opposing the federal government, directing their ire at other perceived foes, including leftists/antifa, Muslims and immigrants," according to the ADL.
The group's name comes from an inaccurate claim that only three percent of the people in the colonies armed themselves and fought against the British during the Revolutionary War.
The flag seen above is their logo on the traditional Betsy Ross flag. Pitcavage says right-wing groups (mainstream or extreme), which think of themselves as patriotic, sometimes co-opt America's first flag.
"Release the Kraken" flag
© CNN Illustrations/ITV
The flag references former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell's comments that she was going to "release the Kraken." Powell falsely said she had evidence that would destroy the idea that Joe Biden won the presidency.
The "Kraken," a mammoth sea creature from Scandavian folklore, has turned into a meme in circles that believe the election was stolen. The Kraken, they say, is a cache of evidence that there was widespread fraud. On social media, QAnon conspiracy and fringe sites #ReleaseTheKraken has been widely shared along with false theories of fraud.
The Proud Boys and the OK sign
The far right has co-opted the OK sign as a trolling gesture and, for some, as a symbol of white power. The ADL added that symbol to its long-standing database of slogans and symbols used by extremists.
"They are wearing orange caps to identify each other; in past rallies they wore identifying shirts and other gear, but they ditched that for this event after their leader was recently arrested," Pitcavage explained.
The Proud Boys has been supportive of President Trump and present at "Stop The Steal" rallies in Washington, DC. The Proud Boys' leader, Henry Tarrio, who goes by Enrique Tarrio, was released from police custody Tuesday on charges related to allegedly burning a Black Lives Matter banner taken from a Black church last month during protests in the city after a "Stop the Steal" rally last month. He was ordered by a local judge to stay out of DC as he awaits trial, including during this week's protests.
"Kekistan" flags
The green, white and black flag was created by some members of the 4chan online community to represent a made-up joke country named for "Kek," a fictional god they also created. It has long been present at right-wing and far-right rallies.
The flag references former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell's comments that she was going to "release the Kraken." Powell falsely said she had evidence that would destroy the idea that Joe Biden won the presidency.
The "Kraken," a mammoth sea creature from Scandavian folklore, has turned into a meme in circles that believe the election was stolen. The Kraken, they say, is a cache of evidence that there was widespread fraud. On social media, QAnon conspiracy and fringe sites #ReleaseTheKraken has been widely shared along with false theories of fraud.
The Proud Boys and the OK sign
The far right has co-opted the OK sign as a trolling gesture and, for some, as a symbol of white power. The ADL added that symbol to its long-standing database of slogans and symbols used by extremists.
"They are wearing orange caps to identify each other; in past rallies they wore identifying shirts and other gear, but they ditched that for this event after their leader was recently arrested," Pitcavage explained.
The Proud Boys has been supportive of President Trump and present at "Stop The Steal" rallies in Washington, DC. The Proud Boys' leader, Henry Tarrio, who goes by Enrique Tarrio, was released from police custody Tuesday on charges related to allegedly burning a Black Lives Matter banner taken from a Black church last month during protests in the city after a "Stop the Steal" rally last month. He was ordered by a local judge to stay out of DC as he awaits trial, including during this week's protests.
"Kekistan" flags
The green, white and black flag was created by some members of the 4chan online community to represent a made-up joke country named for "Kek," a fictional god they also created. It has long been present at right-wing and far-right rallies.
Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Trump supporters gathered in the nation's capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over President Trump in the 2020 election.
(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
© CNN Illustrations/Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post/Getty Images
"The Kekistan flag is controversial because its design was partially derived from a Nazi-era flag; this was apparently done on purpose as a joke," Pitcavage explained. "Younger right-wingers coming from the 4chan subculture (both mainstream right and extreme right) often like to display the Kekistan flag at rallies and events."
Altered historic flags
Altered Confederate and Gadsden flags were seen throughout the crowds at the Capitol. One Confederate battle flag variation included an image of assault rifle and the slogan "Come and take it" to convey an anti-gun control message. The phrase "come and take it" paraphrases the "come and take them" retort uttered by Spartan King Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae when the Persian King Xerxes told him and his people to lay down their spears in return for their lives, Pitcavage said.
The Gadsden flag, which is known to many as the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, is a traditional and historical patriotic flag dating to the American Revolution. The flag and symbol are also popular among Libertarians. But it also has been co-opted by right wing groups. Pitcavage explains that while some fly it as a symbol for patriotism, others use it as a "symbol of resistance to perceived tyranny."
Oath Keepers
A man is seen wearing an Oath Keepers hat inside the Capitol after it was breached. The Oath Keepers is a pro-Trump, far-right, anti-government group that considers itself part of the militia movement charged to protect the country and defend the constitution. The group tries to recruit members from among active or retired military, first responders, or police.
© CNN Illustrations/Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post/Getty Images
"The Kekistan flag is controversial because its design was partially derived from a Nazi-era flag; this was apparently done on purpose as a joke," Pitcavage explained. "Younger right-wingers coming from the 4chan subculture (both mainstream right and extreme right) often like to display the Kekistan flag at rallies and events."
Altered historic flags
Altered Confederate and Gadsden flags were seen throughout the crowds at the Capitol. One Confederate battle flag variation included an image of assault rifle and the slogan "Come and take it" to convey an anti-gun control message. The phrase "come and take it" paraphrases the "come and take them" retort uttered by Spartan King Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae when the Persian King Xerxes told him and his people to lay down their spears in return for their lives, Pitcavage said.
The Gadsden flag, which is known to many as the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, is a traditional and historical patriotic flag dating to the American Revolution. The flag and symbol are also popular among Libertarians. But it also has been co-opted by right wing groups. Pitcavage explains that while some fly it as a symbol for patriotism, others use it as a "symbol of resistance to perceived tyranny."
Oath Keepers
A man is seen wearing an Oath Keepers hat inside the Capitol after it was breached. The Oath Keepers is a pro-Trump, far-right, anti-government group that considers itself part of the militia movement charged to protect the country and defend the constitution. The group tries to recruit members from among active or retired military, first responders, or police.
© CNN Illustrations/Roberto Schidt/AFP/Getty Images
Their leader has spouted vast conspiracy theories on his blog, accused Democrats of stealing the election, previously threatened violence if it was necessary on Election Day during an interview with far-right conspiracist Alex Jones and said his group would be armed to protect the White House if necessary, according to the ADL.
Their leader has spouted vast conspiracy theories on his blog, accused Democrats of stealing the election, previously threatened violence if it was necessary on Election Day during an interview with far-right conspiracist Alex Jones and said his group would be armed to protect the White House if necessary, according to the ADL.
The Confederate flag
During the United States' long Civil War, no Confederate battle flag came within the shadow of the US Capitol, but on Wednesday, an insurrectionist carried one right through its halls.
During the United States' long Civil War, no Confederate battle flag came within the shadow of the US Capitol, but on Wednesday, an insurrectionist carried one right through its halls.
© CNN Illustrations/Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
Photographers captured a man carrying it past the portraits of abolitionist Charles Sumner and slaveholder John Calhoun.
The flag was always a symbol of support for slavery. After World War II, it became a prominent symbol of Jim Crow and segregation, Pitcavage says not surprisingly, it is a popular symbol among white supremacists -- even outside the United States.
America First flag
A rioter cloaks himself in an America First flag with the logo of the podcast by far-right commentator Nick Fuentes. Fuentes attended the event at the Capitol, but was photographed remaining outside the Capitol building.
Photographers captured a man carrying it past the portraits of abolitionist Charles Sumner and slaveholder John Calhoun.
The flag was always a symbol of support for slavery. After World War II, it became a prominent symbol of Jim Crow and segregation, Pitcavage says not surprisingly, it is a popular symbol among white supremacists -- even outside the United States.
America First flag
A rioter cloaks himself in an America First flag with the logo of the podcast by far-right commentator Nick Fuentes. Fuentes attended the event at the Capitol, but was photographed remaining outside the Capitol building.
© CNN Illustrations/Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
"America First" was also a slogan President Trump used in describing his foreign policy. Its adoption was criticized by the ADL, which said it had an anti-Semitic use seeking to keep the US out of World War II.
The ADL says Fuentes is part of the "groyper army," which the ADL calls a white supremacist group.
"While the group and leadership's views align with those held by the white supremacist alt right, groypers attempt to normalize their ideology by aligning themselves with 'Christianity' and 'traditional' values ostensibly championed by the church, including marriage and family," the ADL explains. "Like the alt right and other white supremacists, groypers believe they are working to defend against demographic and cultural changes that are destroying the 'true America' -- a white, Christian nation."
"Camp Auschwitz"
A rioter inside the Capitol wore a "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirt. The bottom of the shirt reads "Work brings freedom," which is the rough translation of the words "Arbeit macht frei" on the gates of the Nazi concentration camp. Auschwitz was the largest and most infamous Nazi concentration camp, where about 1.1 million people were killed during World War II.
Pitcavage says he believes the shirt came from the now-defunct website Aryanwear. The design, which has been around for about 10 years according to Pitcavage, has been popping up on differing websites in recent weeks, though it is often taken down when a complaint is made.
"America First" was also a slogan President Trump used in describing his foreign policy. Its adoption was criticized by the ADL, which said it had an anti-Semitic use seeking to keep the US out of World War II.
The ADL says Fuentes is part of the "groyper army," which the ADL calls a white supremacist group.
"While the group and leadership's views align with those held by the white supremacist alt right, groypers attempt to normalize their ideology by aligning themselves with 'Christianity' and 'traditional' values ostensibly championed by the church, including marriage and family," the ADL explains. "Like the alt right and other white supremacists, groypers believe they are working to defend against demographic and cultural changes that are destroying the 'true America' -- a white, Christian nation."
"Camp Auschwitz"
A rioter inside the Capitol wore a "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirt. The bottom of the shirt reads "Work brings freedom," which is the rough translation of the words "Arbeit macht frei" on the gates of the Nazi concentration camp. Auschwitz was the largest and most infamous Nazi concentration camp, where about 1.1 million people were killed during World War II.
Pitcavage says he believes the shirt came from the now-defunct website Aryanwear. The design, which has been around for about 10 years according to Pitcavage, has been popping up on differing websites in recent weeks, though it is often taken down when a complaint is made.
© CNN Illustrations/Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
Nationalist Social Club stickers
Nationalist Social Club stickers
© CNN Illustrations/Telegram
A social media image shows Nationalist Social Club stickers on what appears to be US Capitol Police equipment It's unclear when the photo was taken, but it was posted Wednesday in a Telegram chat the group uses, which includes a Nazi symbol as part of their name.
NSC, apparently a word play on the National Socialists or Nazi party, is a neo-Nazi group that has regional chapters in both the United States and across the globe, according to the ADL. It is unclear if the sticker on the right refers to a New England chapter, or because the group originally called itself the New England Nationalists Club.
"NSC members see themselves as soldiers at war with a hostile, Jewish-controlled system that is deliberately plotting the extinction of the white race," according to the ADL. "Their goal is to form an underground network of white men who are willing to fight against their perceived enemies through localized direct actions."
MAGA Civil War January 6, 2021 shirts
There are still many questions about how exactly the attack on the Capitol happened and who led the charge. But the calls for overthrowing the government and for a civil or race war have long been rallying cries in far-right circles.
The shirts worn by these men on the Capitol grounds on Wednesday show there was at least an intention to commemorate the day. They wore pre-printed shirts, referencing Trump's signature Make America Great Again slogan, alongside the words Civil war and the date of the event that turned into insurrection.
Many commenters in far-right forums have written since the attack, that this is just the beginning of that civil war that many of them have long desired.
A social media image shows Nationalist Social Club stickers on what appears to be US Capitol Police equipment It's unclear when the photo was taken, but it was posted Wednesday in a Telegram chat the group uses, which includes a Nazi symbol as part of their name.
NSC, apparently a word play on the National Socialists or Nazi party, is a neo-Nazi group that has regional chapters in both the United States and across the globe, according to the ADL. It is unclear if the sticker on the right refers to a New England chapter, or because the group originally called itself the New England Nationalists Club.
"NSC members see themselves as soldiers at war with a hostile, Jewish-controlled system that is deliberately plotting the extinction of the white race," according to the ADL. "Their goal is to form an underground network of white men who are willing to fight against their perceived enemies through localized direct actions."
MAGA Civil War January 6, 2021 shirts
There are still many questions about how exactly the attack on the Capitol happened and who led the charge. But the calls for overthrowing the government and for a civil or race war have long been rallying cries in far-right circles.
The shirts worn by these men on the Capitol grounds on Wednesday show there was at least an intention to commemorate the day. They wore pre-printed shirts, referencing Trump's signature Make America Great Again slogan, alongside the words Civil war and the date of the event that turned into insurrection.
Many commenters in far-right forums have written since the attack, that this is just the beginning of that civil war that many of them have long desired.
© CNN Illustrations/Tess Owens/Vice NewsThursday, October 23, 2014
Monday, September 19, 2022
Schools across US hit with dozens of false shooting, bomb threats. Experts say it's a 'cruel hoax'
Jeanine Santucci, USA TODAY
Sun, September 18, 2022 at 4:00 AM·6 min read
Across the country, dozens of schools went on lockdown. Students and teachers hid in classrooms. Police searched campuses. Parents panicked.
Each time, there was no threat. Officials say there's been a wave of false reports of school shootings and threats of violence over the last several days. USA TODAY found at least 30 active shooter false alarms and threats made at schools last week.
Authorities haven't publicly said the incidents are related, but experts say these intentional false reports have similarities. Their origins can be difficult or impossible to trace, but waves of false alarms are often the work of disgruntled pranksters trying to disrupt school or malicious bad actors trying to sow fear. And such hoaxes seem to increase around this time of year with students returning to classrooms.
"A red flag... is when you start seeing a chunk of these very similar threats in multiple cities in one area or region or state, and then others in another state. It's usually a red flag for what they call swatting," said Kenneth Trump, a school safety expert.
"Swatting" is making a hoax call to law enforcement to deliberately cause a large police or SWAT team response. Sometimes, an individual does it to single out someone specific, but the calls can also be done in waves as a trend to seemingly random targets.
MORE ON SHOOTINGS: Mass killings database reveals trends, details and anguish in every US event since 2006
INCREASED VIOLENCE: Shots fired in US schools spiked dramatically last year, gun violence report finds
False school shooting reports in Florida, California and more
In Texas on Tuesday, Houston authorities received a call that said two shooters were rampaging Heights High School and 10 students had been shot. Police did a room-by-room search of the school. They found no trace of a shooting.
Similar false reports happened at several other schools in Texas and California that day.
On Wednesday, threats made on social media temporarily shuttered schools in the Thorndale Independent School District in central Texas, Eisenhower High School outside of Houston and a false shooting report put a Fresno, California high school on lockdown.
The same thing happened Thursday in Santa Barbara, California where another false shooting report was phoned in, and in Northampton, Massachusetts, where a school received a bomb threat on social media.
False shooting reports were also called in about schools in Florida, Arkansas, Oregon, Illinois, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Fear among students, parents during hoaxes
Seventeen-year-old Ray High School junior Amaris Sanchez talks on the phone outside the school after police responded to a false report of an active shooter on Friday, Sept. 16, 2022. The report prompted a lockdown before police determined it was false, and students were released early.
Amaris Sanchez, 17, was in English class at W.B. Ray High School in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Friday when the school went on lockdown after police got a call about an active shooter on campus. It turned out to be false.
“I was mentally preparing myself, you know, whatever happens,” Sanchez told the Corpus Christi Caller Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. “It was a very scary moment because you don’t know what was going to happen. I didn’t know at the moment if I was going to be OK.”
Belen Alaniz, a parent of two children at South Fort Myers High School in Florida where a false shooting report was made Friday, told the Fort Myers News-Press, part of the USA TODAY Network, she left work immediately when she heard about a shooting on campus.
"The first thought was leaving work and I didn't care," Alaniz said. "I told my manager, 'I'm leaving,' and I ran out the door. I didn't even clock out because that's how afraid I was."
FBI probing possible connections in slew of threats
Local FBI field offices in a few states are working with police to determine whether there is a connection between some of the threats.
“We’re working with local authorities and our field offices nationwide to determine if there is a link. Obviously, any hoax threat to a school can have serious consequences for students, teachers and others, as well as first responders, and can be prosecuted as a crime," said Laura Eimiller, a spokesperson for the FBI's Los Angeles field office.
HISTORIC HIGH: It's not just Uvalde, Texas — gunfire on school grounds is at historic high in the US
AFTER UVALDE: Texas school shooting report finds 'systemic failures' in law enforcement response
In the wake of the elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 fourth-graders and their two teachers, schools and families across the country are on high alert and in a constant state of anxiety over school safety, Trump said. "People are on edge," he said.
Many of the recent false alarms have fallen into two categories, said Trump, who said he has no relation to the former president and heads the Cleveland-based National School Safety and Security Services.
In some cases, threats are made by members of the local community, oftentimes teenagers or young adults who are disgruntled with the school or who might be trying to pull a prank or get out of a test.
"They're not realizing that once you press send, you can't put the threat back into the smartphone," Trump said. "And then when the ton of bricks hits, as happens in many other teen bad decisions, in this case, you're getting significant consequences."
Those consequences can include suspension, expulsion, criminal prosecution and serious fines. Just last week, authorities say teens were charged in Michigan and Florida for making school shooting threats.
The other category of swatting threats comes from malicious outside parties that often have no connection to the schools or the local communities. They can be generated from anywhere in the country or even internationally.
"The FBI is aware of the numerous swatting incidents wherein a report of an active shooter at a school is made. The FBI takes swatting very seriously because it puts innocent people at risk," the FBI said in a statement to USA TODAY.
Hoax threats drain resources, traumatize students and staff
Students and parents reunite at South Fort Myers High School after a threat of a gun was called in Friday afternoon. Lee County Sheriff's Office declared that there was no active shooter after officers searched the school. It was declared a "swatting" incident.
The false reports of active shootings can traumatize students and staff. They also drain significant resources from schools and local authorities.
"Non-credible school hoaxes are a serious offense that Los Angeles Unified takes seriously. Threats disrupt the educational environment, increase stress levels, and interfere with law enforcement's ability to protect schools from real dangers. It also poses a serious risk to our community, draining resources and occupying the time of critical first responders," the Los Angeles Unified School District said in a statement after a hoax report of shots fired at Hollywood High School last week.
The swatting threats can also pose a serious risk of injury. In 2017, California resident Tyler Barriss made a swatting call reporting a fake hostage situation after arguing with a fellow gamer playing "Call of Duty." He gave an address of an innocent, unrelated person who police ended up fatally shooting during their response. Barriss was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
An uptick in these types of calls isn't unusual this time of year, Trump said. There's also a spike in the spring, and a wave of copycat threats in the wake of any mass school shooting. But the last several days have seen a higher number of incidents.
"I don't like to use the word prank," Trump said. "It's not really a prank that we're seeing, it's really a cruel hoax."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Schools hit with fake shooting threats across US; FBI probes possible link
Jeanine Santucci, USA TODAY
Sun, September 18, 2022 at 4:00 AM·6 min read
Across the country, dozens of schools went on lockdown. Students and teachers hid in classrooms. Police searched campuses. Parents panicked.
Each time, there was no threat. Officials say there's been a wave of false reports of school shootings and threats of violence over the last several days. USA TODAY found at least 30 active shooter false alarms and threats made at schools last week.
Authorities haven't publicly said the incidents are related, but experts say these intentional false reports have similarities. Their origins can be difficult or impossible to trace, but waves of false alarms are often the work of disgruntled pranksters trying to disrupt school or malicious bad actors trying to sow fear. And such hoaxes seem to increase around this time of year with students returning to classrooms.
"A red flag... is when you start seeing a chunk of these very similar threats in multiple cities in one area or region or state, and then others in another state. It's usually a red flag for what they call swatting," said Kenneth Trump, a school safety expert.
"Swatting" is making a hoax call to law enforcement to deliberately cause a large police or SWAT team response. Sometimes, an individual does it to single out someone specific, but the calls can also be done in waves as a trend to seemingly random targets.
MORE ON SHOOTINGS: Mass killings database reveals trends, details and anguish in every US event since 2006
INCREASED VIOLENCE: Shots fired in US schools spiked dramatically last year, gun violence report finds
False school shooting reports in Florida, California and more
In Texas on Tuesday, Houston authorities received a call that said two shooters were rampaging Heights High School and 10 students had been shot. Police did a room-by-room search of the school. They found no trace of a shooting.
Similar false reports happened at several other schools in Texas and California that day.
On Wednesday, threats made on social media temporarily shuttered schools in the Thorndale Independent School District in central Texas, Eisenhower High School outside of Houston and a false shooting report put a Fresno, California high school on lockdown.
The same thing happened Thursday in Santa Barbara, California where another false shooting report was phoned in, and in Northampton, Massachusetts, where a school received a bomb threat on social media.
False shooting reports were also called in about schools in Florida, Arkansas, Oregon, Illinois, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Fear among students, parents during hoaxes
Seventeen-year-old Ray High School junior Amaris Sanchez talks on the phone outside the school after police responded to a false report of an active shooter on Friday, Sept. 16, 2022. The report prompted a lockdown before police determined it was false, and students were released early.
Amaris Sanchez, 17, was in English class at W.B. Ray High School in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Friday when the school went on lockdown after police got a call about an active shooter on campus. It turned out to be false.
“I was mentally preparing myself, you know, whatever happens,” Sanchez told the Corpus Christi Caller Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. “It was a very scary moment because you don’t know what was going to happen. I didn’t know at the moment if I was going to be OK.”
Belen Alaniz, a parent of two children at South Fort Myers High School in Florida where a false shooting report was made Friday, told the Fort Myers News-Press, part of the USA TODAY Network, she left work immediately when she heard about a shooting on campus.
"The first thought was leaving work and I didn't care," Alaniz said. "I told my manager, 'I'm leaving,' and I ran out the door. I didn't even clock out because that's how afraid I was."
FBI probing possible connections in slew of threats
Local FBI field offices in a few states are working with police to determine whether there is a connection between some of the threats.
“We’re working with local authorities and our field offices nationwide to determine if there is a link. Obviously, any hoax threat to a school can have serious consequences for students, teachers and others, as well as first responders, and can be prosecuted as a crime," said Laura Eimiller, a spokesperson for the FBI's Los Angeles field office.
HISTORIC HIGH: It's not just Uvalde, Texas — gunfire on school grounds is at historic high in the US
AFTER UVALDE: Texas school shooting report finds 'systemic failures' in law enforcement response
In the wake of the elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 fourth-graders and their two teachers, schools and families across the country are on high alert and in a constant state of anxiety over school safety, Trump said. "People are on edge," he said.
Many of the recent false alarms have fallen into two categories, said Trump, who said he has no relation to the former president and heads the Cleveland-based National School Safety and Security Services.
In some cases, threats are made by members of the local community, oftentimes teenagers or young adults who are disgruntled with the school or who might be trying to pull a prank or get out of a test.
"They're not realizing that once you press send, you can't put the threat back into the smartphone," Trump said. "And then when the ton of bricks hits, as happens in many other teen bad decisions, in this case, you're getting significant consequences."
Those consequences can include suspension, expulsion, criminal prosecution and serious fines. Just last week, authorities say teens were charged in Michigan and Florida for making school shooting threats.
The other category of swatting threats comes from malicious outside parties that often have no connection to the schools or the local communities. They can be generated from anywhere in the country or even internationally.
"The FBI is aware of the numerous swatting incidents wherein a report of an active shooter at a school is made. The FBI takes swatting very seriously because it puts innocent people at risk," the FBI said in a statement to USA TODAY.
Hoax threats drain resources, traumatize students and staff
Students and parents reunite at South Fort Myers High School after a threat of a gun was called in Friday afternoon. Lee County Sheriff's Office declared that there was no active shooter after officers searched the school. It was declared a "swatting" incident.
The false reports of active shootings can traumatize students and staff. They also drain significant resources from schools and local authorities.
"Non-credible school hoaxes are a serious offense that Los Angeles Unified takes seriously. Threats disrupt the educational environment, increase stress levels, and interfere with law enforcement's ability to protect schools from real dangers. It also poses a serious risk to our community, draining resources and occupying the time of critical first responders," the Los Angeles Unified School District said in a statement after a hoax report of shots fired at Hollywood High School last week.
The swatting threats can also pose a serious risk of injury. In 2017, California resident Tyler Barriss made a swatting call reporting a fake hostage situation after arguing with a fellow gamer playing "Call of Duty." He gave an address of an innocent, unrelated person who police ended up fatally shooting during their response. Barriss was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
An uptick in these types of calls isn't unusual this time of year, Trump said. There's also a spike in the spring, and a wave of copycat threats in the wake of any mass school shooting. But the last several days have seen a higher number of incidents.
"I don't like to use the word prank," Trump said. "It's not really a prank that we're seeing, it's really a cruel hoax."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Schools hit with fake shooting threats across US; FBI probes possible link
Monday, May 06, 2024
Who believes the most "taboo" conspiracy theories? It might not be who you think
White men with graduate degrees, a new study finds, are highly likely to hold especially noxious beliefs
By PAUL ROSENBERG
Your paper has a dramatic finding regarding "a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men” who tend to embrace conspiracy beliefs that are "distinctly taboo." But that's just the tip of the iceberg, because there's a whole host of questions that raises, including the role of sociology in this research, not just psychology. What led you to do the research behind this paper — what kind of questions, concerns or interests were driving you?
One of the things that motivated me was precisely the observation that sociologists hadn't really been part of the conversation. I've been interested in this topic for a while. I grew up spending a lot of time online, seeing a lot of conspiratorial stuff, having a lot of conversations with my friends about that kind of stuff. In the past couple of years, it seems like a lot of it has hit the mainstream. I remember when QAnon stuff first started fermenting online. I remember seeing posts where people were analyzing and trying to break down these “Q drops,” and sending them to my brother, like “What's what's going on here? This is something totally new.”
When I got to grad school, I thought, well, there's got to be some sociologists doing work on this. I definitely found a cluster of cultural sociologists starting to do some really interesting stuff that inspired me a lot. I also found the work of people like Joseph Uscinski and others in political science who had been doing some work and some theorization that I thought could be pulled into building a sociological approach to this.
What did you think you might learn in doing this study?
The basic question was just which groups of people tend to hold which conspiratorial beliefs. Maybe it seems like an overly basic question, but I was really struggling to find anybody in the literature that had engaged it. There's a lot of talk about who believes conspiracies in general, but there's less attention to how different groups might be sympathetic to different claims. And I had observed in my time online that some conspiracy spaces are older or younger, in some there's more white people or more women, and I wanted to know what the variation was. That was the starting point, and then building a more sociological approach to the topic, looking at inequality and demographic variation, and then moving on to other questions.
So what did you find that confirmed that basic sociological intuition that there were significant differences, and what did you find that surprised you?
The belief "that school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland are false-flag attacks ... and that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis has been exaggerated on purpose — these two particular claims are disproportionately held by white graduate-degree-holding men."
The one pattern I really highlight is, as you said, that there's this cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who are more favorable towards almost all the beliefs that are listed. But there are some that they are much more favorable toward, where there's a larger gap between them and those without graduate degrees. I describe these as "taboo claims." Specifically, that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland are false-flag attacks perpetrated by the government, and the other one is that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II has been exaggerated on purpose. These two particular claims are very disproportionately held by white graduate-degree-holding men.
In addition, if you look a little bit deeper into some of the other survey research and even my own data, you can also see a concentration of medical-themed conspiracy beliefs among African-Americans, and among the less educated. Those were the two points of variation that I have been able to highlight. I suspect there are many more. But here the goal of the paper was just to demonstrate that variation exists. It wasn't to capture all of it.
That second variation is unsurprising, given that African Americans have been very ill-treated by the medical establishment. If you told most white people about the Tuskegee experiment 20 or 30 years ago, they'd think that was a conspiracy theory. But the finding about this group of more educated white men was more surprising. What have you speculated the reasons might be?
The most convincing explanation I found is that essentially this is about access dynamics. The typical theoretical focus when it comes to conspiracy beliefs tends to be toward attitudes or dispositions. I think the role of attitudes is relevant here, and I think these attitudes are fueled by a perception of threat among graduate-degree-holding white men. Maybe they see social changes that are going on, they hear how the tone of certain conversations is changing, they see how the job market is changing. So there's a perception of threat. That's where you get the attitudes.
Now the other side is the access. There's a couple of things that could be going on, but it's hard to believe that Sandy Hook was perpetrated by the government unless you've heard that claim made in some level of detail, not just seeing reporting about Alex Jones but hearing somebody really make that claim. It's even hard if you don't know what a false-flag attack is. So I suspect that graduate-degree-holding white men, particularly via online channels, are are more likely to encounter this information, more likely to run into it. We also know from scholarship on rumor that certain rumors tend to be concentrated in certain demographic networks. There's a rumor that will primarily be spread within white networks or Black networks, and that's what's going on here.
I think it's also important to take survey results about something as deep as beliefs with a grain of salt. A question I get a lot when I present this research is, “Oh, they don't really believe that, do they?” That's not really a question that a survey can necessarily answer. At the very least, we know they are checking off a survey box way more often. So if we read it with that interpretation, we can maybe say that this is kind of a transgressive act. They’re saying, “I know that I'm supposed to be checking off the other box, but I'm going to check off this one.” To me, it's demonstrating a kind of transgressive expertise, a special access to what Michael Barkun calls “stigmatized knowledge.”
So that sets off two things for me. One is the question of how you would go about digging deeper into that, testing if that's true. Related to that, it seems that survey research could be improved to ask people whether they have communicated these beliefs to others, are they deeply held beliefs that help them make sense of other things, questions like that. Have you given any thought to that?
"A question I get a lot when I present this research is, 'Oh, they don't really believe that, do they?' That's not a question that a survey can necessarily answer."
Some of those things can be ascertained through survey research. I like the idea of asking, "Have you ever spoken to somebody about this?" or "Is this something you hold privately?" But I'm wary that survey research will give us all the answers we need. If you really want to figure out if somebody really believes something, I think you have to talk to them. You have to learn about how they live their life. You have to learn about their social relationships. It’s just like if we were studying religious beliefs. I think you have to engage at a deeper level to figure out whether that is true belief.
There's a lot of room for improvement on surveys, though. One of the biggest rooms for improvement in surveys is on the issue of prompt selection. It seems that this pattern that I noticed didn't get noticed before because nobody was asking these taboo questions on the surveys. Mostly they ask questions about COVID, and maybe a few other things. But if the prompts substantively change the findings of the survey, and nobody seems to be giving much conscious consideration about which prompts are included, there's definitely room for improvement.
You also found similar, though less dramatic, gaps between the highly educated and less educated for four other unpopular beliefs. So there's seemingly a general predisposition to conspiracy beliefs there. What other factors do you think might be involved?
I've gone back and forth, but I think there’s something I've decided on. There's this question of whether it's that they prefer unpopular [beliefs], or is it a question of, like, these things are taboo? They know these things are transgressive, they know these things violate a deep social norm. I'm pretty sure it's the taboo.
But this can be pretty easily tested. There are beliefs that are very unpopular but are not particularly taboo. If you ran a survey that included something like belief in a flat earth, if I'm right we wouldn't expect white grad-degree men to be high on that. When I say “taboo,” I basically mean that if you said something like this in public you would face some kind of social sanction. If I told my co-workers that I thought the earth was flat, they might laugh at me. If I told my co-workers that I thought the Holocaust was exaggerated, it would be a very different story.
Do you have some thoughts on what research you might be able to do to make more sense of this?
One thing that could be done is looking at a really wide variety of prompts and seeing what kinds of patterns are going on. In this one, I'm working with 15 claims and trying to draw a common thread. If you worked with a much larger set of prompts — I know some of those data sets exist — I think it would let you articulate that a little bit more clearly.
Advertisement:
But that's only one way to approach the issue of typology. You could start at the point of "there's a group of people that tends to hold these beliefs," and try to describe those particular claims. You could also start by looking at the claims and trying to find narrative threads between them. You could also define the claims by the relation to some authority, which is kind of what I'm doing with the taboo stuff. So I'm not quite sure how to address that yet.
You also found roughly equivalent subsets of respondents who held both of those claims [about school shootings and the Holocaust] and who disagreed with both, providing a convenient comparison. They differed in terms of extremism and social media use. So what can you say about those differences and how they interrelated?
I already mentioned the question of access. I think social media use gets at that access question. Those who agree report higher levels of social media use by every platform, particularly by anonymous image boards like 4chan and 8chan. So at the very least, if we think about people stumbling into these beliefs kind of accidentally, if you're on 4chan more often you're a lot more likely to run into one of these. In addition, there's some interesting work being done on information-seeking strategies online, and some sociologists have pointed out that people with different social positions have different strategies that may lead to different results. So a possibility relative to social media is that white men with graduate degrees, when they're doing research, the steps they’re taking may be different from some other groups, so they're more likely to end up at a certain point.
Relative to political extremism, that's a bit more complicated. There's definitely some exciting research that's going on about radical political beliefs and their relationship to conspiracy beliefs. Something I want to point out is that the white grad-degree men who agree are way more on the political edges, which maybe is to be expected. They're identifying as extremely liberal or extremely conservative way more often. We get this U-shape. These two taboo claims, at least according to this measure, are not right-wing phenomena. There is a big cluster of people that identify as very liberal and agree with these things as well. I suspect this measure isn't picking up on everything it could be. In the time that I've spent in politically radical spaces online and within the conspiracy milieu, the way people identify politically — there's a lot of variety to it, and “liberal” and “conservative” descriptors may not resonate with a lot of these people. But at the very least we know that people on the political fringes tend to be more charitable towards these claims.
"White grad-degree men who agree [with 'taboo' claims] are way more on the political edges, which maybe is to be expected. They identify as extremely liberal or extremely conservative way more often. We get this U-shape."
Over time, erosion of social trust seems to be related to a rise in conspiratorial beliefs. It would make sense, just in terms of people who feel skeptical of the existing system, for that to show up more, regardless of whether they are left-wing or right-wing. Do you have any thoughts about that?
This is something else I think that sociologists have to bring to the table: What's with the structural context of these situations? There's some evidence that countries with higher levels of social inequality, higher levels of corruption, tend to demonstrate or report higher rates of these beliefs. We know that it's tied to structural conditions. The collapse of institutional trust is a huge piece of this. If you look at graphs of trust in the federal government over time, or trust in the press over time, they're really at historic lows.
That has to play some role. Because when we talk about conspiracy beliefs, in the simple definition we’re talking about claims of elites doing something in private, but we’re also talking about something that counters the official narrative. So in a situation where historically few people trust the producers of the official narratives — in part the government, in part the press — we would expect people to be more doubtful of those things.
But when we talk about social trust, I don't necessarily think belief in conspiracies means a low level of social trust in general. I think it means a low level of trust in particular institutions. But in order to believe a conspiracy you have to hear it. It's probably from somebody you know, and you have to trust them when they tell you that. There's a rumor scholar, Gary Fine, who says that when trust in institutions is questioned, trust in informal networks is revealed. So there is a social trust that exists. It's much more decentralized. It's not in a particular institution and it’s social trust, rather than institutional.
One thing your paper suggested to me was looking at how beliefs in conspiracy theories co-vary, meaning what beliefs go together or tend to negate each other, and how that might change across status lines. I was specifically interested in those white male graduate-degree holders. Are there any beliefs that they accept less than other people? Do you have enough data to look at that yet?
I think enough data exists that we can probably answer that, but I don't know for sure. In this particular data set, there are none that they were less likely to believe in. For very mainstream beliefs — the idea that “one percent” of economic elites control the government and economy, the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered — these are beliefs held by 50% of the general population and also held by about 50% of white men with graduate degrees. In this data there wasn't a single belief that these white male graduate-degree holders were less interested in. That was stunning to me. I was actually very surprised by that..
But it's possible. We have these two types that I'm describing, the medical ones and the kind of taboo ones. It's possible there may be some medical ones that white men with graduate degrees are less likely to agree with. But it is hard to say, because this data clearly suggests that graduate degree holders are more into all of these claims.
We spoke earlier about “prompt selection” and things that perhaps aren't being asked about. Do you have anything specific in mind?
There's a lot of things that aren't being asked, definitely more than are being asked. At least in this paper, my starting point is the simple definition of the conspiracy belief which is, again, basically that a group of elites are plotting something in private. If that's our conceptualization, then the universe of possible things to ask about is massive.
For instance, if that's our conceptualization, why don't we ever ask about institutionally verified conspiracies? For instance, Watergate fits that definition just fine, COINTELPRO fits that definition just fine, Tuskegee fits that definition just fine. To me there seems to be a mismatch, an unacknowledged element to the definition, which is that it has to counter some official narratives. But even if we include that second part in conceptualization, there’s still tons and tons of stuff.
"Why don't we ever ask about institutionally verified conspiracies? For instance, Watergate fits that definition just fine, COINTELPRO fits that definition just fine, the Tuskegee experiment fits that definition just fine."
I read a very interesting paper this past week. This came out as a content analysis of TikTok, but it’s specifically about the conspiracy theory that Taylor Swift is secretly gay, and she's closeted and dropping all these hints in her tracks. Maybe people will say that isn't a politically consequential conspiracy theory, but it’s within the realm of conspiracy claims by any definition.
I've even heard that and I don't follow Taylor Swift news at all. It's clearly out there.
Yeah, if I had to guess, if you polled the demographics it would disproportionately be women. So that makes me think, OK, a lot of studies emphasize that men are more into this stuff. Does that have something to do with the prompts that are selected for the surveys? How does that come into play?
I bring up the Taylor Swift example to demonstrate that the realm of things under this blanket is, like, so large that trying to generalize any kind of research findings to the entire world of claims about elites doing sneaky stuff ends up being very difficult. I suspect there are claims that graduate-degree holders are more into that we haven't quite figured out yet. I suspect there are claims that women are more into that we haven't really figured out. I'd like to see a lot more, a) alignment between the conceptualization and operationalization and b) experimentation within that. We have a big world of things that fit this conceptual framework.
We’ve talked a bit about “collective identity” as a useful concept and you've said “it applies to all varieties of conspiracy cultures." Could you expand on that?
To be totally sociological, collective identity is useful in understanding all kinds of cultures more generally. Within conspiracy cultures, there's a couple things going on. If we talk about rumors, if I tell you some finding before it's published, it feels like you're in the know, it feels like you have a piece of secret information. It's exciting, it feels good. It also creates a bond between people that I think can be part of identity. So that's one level.
There's also the level that gets to the question of institutional distrust. There's a general sense in this country that, you know, people like us — whatever “us” means — are being screwed over by elites in some faraway place. We can't really see what's happening over there, we're not in the rooms where these decisions are made. I think there's a very general sense of that. And who “people like us” ends up being defined by is, I think, very important, because different people are going to understand it in different ways. There’s a general sense that there's opaque power that's screwing us. We don't really know where it is, or what's happening. You hear that kind of sentiment a lot in this milieu.
There's also collective identity more overtly. If I make the claim that white people are being replaced in this country — which to me is one of the more consequential conspiracy claims — I'm invoking a very specific identity, saying, “Hey, we collectively are under threat and need to do something about it!” So some conspiracy claims, even in the claim themselves, name the in-group or name the out-group. It will say who the “we” are, who the mysterious “they” is. Identity plays a key role there as well.
What stands out for you as the next steps? What questions need answering that follow from what you've done so far?
"A lot of people in the conspiracy milieu feel like they're being studied from afar by people that aren't talking to them at all. I think that absolutely adds to the resentment. If you were an expert in Amish culture, you'd probably want to spend time talking to Amish people."
To me, a lot of the most interesting questions are about how, when and why these beliefs matter, which I do think are better suited to qualitative methods. There's been very little in the way of qualitative inquiry into conspiracy cultures, with the big exception of Jaron Harambam, whose work has been very inspiring to me. Back to this matter of collective identity, something he points out that I find intriguing is that there are all kinds of conflicts over identity, even within the conspiracy milieu. There are people who understand themselves as aiming to get new converts to the movement, and other people who understand themselves as basically having given up and clocked out. There's all kinds of variation within the community.
Also, part of my reasoning for wanting to do qualitative research is that I feel like a lot of people in the conspiracy milieu feel like they're being studied from afar by people that aren't talking to them at all. I think that absolutely adds to the resentment.
I saw a tweet recently from somebody who is loosely in these circles that basically said, “How come none of these conspiracy theory experts are even talking to us?” If you are an expert in Amish culture, you'd probably want to spend a lot of time talking to Amish people. If I were studying the student movements that are going on right now, I'd probably be down at the encampments hanging out. It's not like believers in conspiracies are a small or fringe minority group that's super-hard to access. Some of these claims are totally mainstream, and even for the more taboo ones that you might envision would be hard to do qualitative research into, they're concentrated among graduate-degree holders. So in some sense those of us in academia are exceptionally well positioned to engage these communities at a closer level. So I definitely would like to do qualitative research in the coming years.
Finally, what's the most important question I haven’t asked? And what's the answer?
I can tell you a question that I get whenever I present my research to my undergraduates, but I'm not going to answer it. I give this whole presentation and at the end they’re like, “What are the ones that you believe in?” That's not my role as a sociologist. [Laughs.] So that’s my favorite question.
White men with graduate degrees, a new study finds, are highly likely to hold especially noxious beliefs
By PAUL ROSENBERG
SALON
Contributing Writer
PUBLISHED MAY 5, 2024
PUBLISHED MAY 5, 2024
LONG READ
Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr. (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)
Like Henry Ford before him, Elon Musk has emerged as America’s top conspiracy spreader. But he’s hardly alone. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the conspiracy-theory candidate for president, and as Paul Krugman observed last summer, was attracting “support from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley”:
Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, has endorsed him, while some other prominent tech figures have been holding fund-raisers on his behalf. Elon Musk, who is in the process of destroying what Dorsey built, hosted him for a Twitter Spaces event.
Krugman didn't focus on conspiracy theory as such but on something closely related: distrust of experts and skepticism about widely accepted facts. He described this tendency as the “brain rotting drug” of reflexive contrarianism, quoting economist Adam Ozimek.
That wasn’t exactly scientific, but a new paper entitled “The Status Foundations of Conspiracy Beliefs” by Saverio Roscigno, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, is. Its most eye-catching finding is the discovery of “a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who display a penchant for conspiracy beliefs” that are “distinctively taboo.”
Specifically, Roscigno writes, “approximately a quarter of those who hold a graduate degree agree or strongly agree” that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland “are false flag attacks perpetrated by the government,” which is “around twice the rate of those without graduate degrees.” Results are similar for the proposition that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust “has been exaggerated on purpose.”
Related
RFK Jr. and Aaron Rodgers: How con artists exploit male insecurity for political gain
These findings are striking for many reasons. Most obviously, they go against the common belief — long supported by research — that conspiracist beliefs are more common among lower-income and less-educated individuals. They also challenge the formulation popularized by Joseph Uscinski that "conspiracy theories are for losers," and should be understood as “alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers” that “tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity.”
Roscigno’s findings don’t refute previous formulations so much as reframe them by adding greater nuance. For example, he finds that conspiracy beliefs are more common both among the less educated and less affluent, on the one hand, and the more educated and more affluent on the other. Secondly, he identifies the subjective group experience of threat as a key element, rather than objective “loser” status.
Even more important, his paper reveals how much more we have to learn about conspiracy theories from a rigorous social science approach. Conspiracy theory is much more mainstream, varied and ubiquitous than previously assumed, and there’s much more to be learned from studying it as an integral part of the sociological landscape. Like the recently published paper I previously covered here, this model breaks with dualistic approaches that in some sense mirror what we find troubling about conspiracism — that is, painting the world in black-and-white rather than in many shades of gray. I recently spoke with Roscigno by Zoom about his findings and where they might lead. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
Like Henry Ford before him, Elon Musk has emerged as America’s top conspiracy spreader. But he’s hardly alone. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the conspiracy-theory candidate for president, and as Paul Krugman observed last summer, was attracting “support from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley”:
Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, has endorsed him, while some other prominent tech figures have been holding fund-raisers on his behalf. Elon Musk, who is in the process of destroying what Dorsey built, hosted him for a Twitter Spaces event.
Krugman didn't focus on conspiracy theory as such but on something closely related: distrust of experts and skepticism about widely accepted facts. He described this tendency as the “brain rotting drug” of reflexive contrarianism, quoting economist Adam Ozimek.
That wasn’t exactly scientific, but a new paper entitled “The Status Foundations of Conspiracy Beliefs” by Saverio Roscigno, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, is. Its most eye-catching finding is the discovery of “a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who display a penchant for conspiracy beliefs” that are “distinctively taboo.”
Specifically, Roscigno writes, “approximately a quarter of those who hold a graduate degree agree or strongly agree” that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland “are false flag attacks perpetrated by the government,” which is “around twice the rate of those without graduate degrees.” Results are similar for the proposition that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust “has been exaggerated on purpose.”
Related
RFK Jr. and Aaron Rodgers: How con artists exploit male insecurity for political gain
These findings are striking for many reasons. Most obviously, they go against the common belief — long supported by research — that conspiracist beliefs are more common among lower-income and less-educated individuals. They also challenge the formulation popularized by Joseph Uscinski that "conspiracy theories are for losers," and should be understood as “alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers” that “tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity.”
Roscigno’s findings don’t refute previous formulations so much as reframe them by adding greater nuance. For example, he finds that conspiracy beliefs are more common both among the less educated and less affluent, on the one hand, and the more educated and more affluent on the other. Secondly, he identifies the subjective group experience of threat as a key element, rather than objective “loser” status.
Even more important, his paper reveals how much more we have to learn about conspiracy theories from a rigorous social science approach. Conspiracy theory is much more mainstream, varied and ubiquitous than previously assumed, and there’s much more to be learned from studying it as an integral part of the sociological landscape. Like the recently published paper I previously covered here, this model breaks with dualistic approaches that in some sense mirror what we find troubling about conspiracism — that is, painting the world in black-and-white rather than in many shades of gray. I recently spoke with Roscigno by Zoom about his findings and where they might lead. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
Your paper has a dramatic finding regarding "a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men” who tend to embrace conspiracy beliefs that are "distinctly taboo." But that's just the tip of the iceberg, because there's a whole host of questions that raises, including the role of sociology in this research, not just psychology. What led you to do the research behind this paper — what kind of questions, concerns or interests were driving you?
One of the things that motivated me was precisely the observation that sociologists hadn't really been part of the conversation. I've been interested in this topic for a while. I grew up spending a lot of time online, seeing a lot of conspiratorial stuff, having a lot of conversations with my friends about that kind of stuff. In the past couple of years, it seems like a lot of it has hit the mainstream. I remember when QAnon stuff first started fermenting online. I remember seeing posts where people were analyzing and trying to break down these “Q drops,” and sending them to my brother, like “What's what's going on here? This is something totally new.”
When I got to grad school, I thought, well, there's got to be some sociologists doing work on this. I definitely found a cluster of cultural sociologists starting to do some really interesting stuff that inspired me a lot. I also found the work of people like Joseph Uscinski and others in political science who had been doing some work and some theorization that I thought could be pulled into building a sociological approach to this.
What did you think you might learn in doing this study?
The basic question was just which groups of people tend to hold which conspiratorial beliefs. Maybe it seems like an overly basic question, but I was really struggling to find anybody in the literature that had engaged it. There's a lot of talk about who believes conspiracies in general, but there's less attention to how different groups might be sympathetic to different claims. And I had observed in my time online that some conspiracy spaces are older or younger, in some there's more white people or more women, and I wanted to know what the variation was. That was the starting point, and then building a more sociological approach to the topic, looking at inequality and demographic variation, and then moving on to other questions.
So what did you find that confirmed that basic sociological intuition that there were significant differences, and what did you find that surprised you?
The belief "that school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland are false-flag attacks ... and that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis has been exaggerated on purpose — these two particular claims are disproportionately held by white graduate-degree-holding men."
The one pattern I really highlight is, as you said, that there's this cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who are more favorable towards almost all the beliefs that are listed. But there are some that they are much more favorable toward, where there's a larger gap between them and those without graduate degrees. I describe these as "taboo claims." Specifically, that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland are false-flag attacks perpetrated by the government, and the other one is that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II has been exaggerated on purpose. These two particular claims are very disproportionately held by white graduate-degree-holding men.
In addition, if you look a little bit deeper into some of the other survey research and even my own data, you can also see a concentration of medical-themed conspiracy beliefs among African-Americans, and among the less educated. Those were the two points of variation that I have been able to highlight. I suspect there are many more. But here the goal of the paper was just to demonstrate that variation exists. It wasn't to capture all of it.
That second variation is unsurprising, given that African Americans have been very ill-treated by the medical establishment. If you told most white people about the Tuskegee experiment 20 or 30 years ago, they'd think that was a conspiracy theory. But the finding about this group of more educated white men was more surprising. What have you speculated the reasons might be?
The most convincing explanation I found is that essentially this is about access dynamics. The typical theoretical focus when it comes to conspiracy beliefs tends to be toward attitudes or dispositions. I think the role of attitudes is relevant here, and I think these attitudes are fueled by a perception of threat among graduate-degree-holding white men. Maybe they see social changes that are going on, they hear how the tone of certain conversations is changing, they see how the job market is changing. So there's a perception of threat. That's where you get the attitudes.
Now the other side is the access. There's a couple of things that could be going on, but it's hard to believe that Sandy Hook was perpetrated by the government unless you've heard that claim made in some level of detail, not just seeing reporting about Alex Jones but hearing somebody really make that claim. It's even hard if you don't know what a false-flag attack is. So I suspect that graduate-degree-holding white men, particularly via online channels, are are more likely to encounter this information, more likely to run into it. We also know from scholarship on rumor that certain rumors tend to be concentrated in certain demographic networks. There's a rumor that will primarily be spread within white networks or Black networks, and that's what's going on here.
I think it's also important to take survey results about something as deep as beliefs with a grain of salt. A question I get a lot when I present this research is, “Oh, they don't really believe that, do they?” That's not really a question that a survey can necessarily answer. At the very least, we know they are checking off a survey box way more often. So if we read it with that interpretation, we can maybe say that this is kind of a transgressive act. They’re saying, “I know that I'm supposed to be checking off the other box, but I'm going to check off this one.” To me, it's demonstrating a kind of transgressive expertise, a special access to what Michael Barkun calls “stigmatized knowledge.”
So that sets off two things for me. One is the question of how you would go about digging deeper into that, testing if that's true. Related to that, it seems that survey research could be improved to ask people whether they have communicated these beliefs to others, are they deeply held beliefs that help them make sense of other things, questions like that. Have you given any thought to that?
"A question I get a lot when I present this research is, 'Oh, they don't really believe that, do they?' That's not a question that a survey can necessarily answer."
Some of those things can be ascertained through survey research. I like the idea of asking, "Have you ever spoken to somebody about this?" or "Is this something you hold privately?" But I'm wary that survey research will give us all the answers we need. If you really want to figure out if somebody really believes something, I think you have to talk to them. You have to learn about how they live their life. You have to learn about their social relationships. It’s just like if we were studying religious beliefs. I think you have to engage at a deeper level to figure out whether that is true belief.
There's a lot of room for improvement on surveys, though. One of the biggest rooms for improvement in surveys is on the issue of prompt selection. It seems that this pattern that I noticed didn't get noticed before because nobody was asking these taboo questions on the surveys. Mostly they ask questions about COVID, and maybe a few other things. But if the prompts substantively change the findings of the survey, and nobody seems to be giving much conscious consideration about which prompts are included, there's definitely room for improvement.
You also found similar, though less dramatic, gaps between the highly educated and less educated for four other unpopular beliefs. So there's seemingly a general predisposition to conspiracy beliefs there. What other factors do you think might be involved?
I've gone back and forth, but I think there’s something I've decided on. There's this question of whether it's that they prefer unpopular [beliefs], or is it a question of, like, these things are taboo? They know these things are transgressive, they know these things violate a deep social norm. I'm pretty sure it's the taboo.
But this can be pretty easily tested. There are beliefs that are very unpopular but are not particularly taboo. If you ran a survey that included something like belief in a flat earth, if I'm right we wouldn't expect white grad-degree men to be high on that. When I say “taboo,” I basically mean that if you said something like this in public you would face some kind of social sanction. If I told my co-workers that I thought the earth was flat, they might laugh at me. If I told my co-workers that I thought the Holocaust was exaggerated, it would be a very different story.
Do you have some thoughts on what research you might be able to do to make more sense of this?
One thing that could be done is looking at a really wide variety of prompts and seeing what kinds of patterns are going on. In this one, I'm working with 15 claims and trying to draw a common thread. If you worked with a much larger set of prompts — I know some of those data sets exist — I think it would let you articulate that a little bit more clearly.
Advertisement:
But that's only one way to approach the issue of typology. You could start at the point of "there's a group of people that tends to hold these beliefs," and try to describe those particular claims. You could also start by looking at the claims and trying to find narrative threads between them. You could also define the claims by the relation to some authority, which is kind of what I'm doing with the taboo stuff. So I'm not quite sure how to address that yet.
You also found roughly equivalent subsets of respondents who held both of those claims [about school shootings and the Holocaust] and who disagreed with both, providing a convenient comparison. They differed in terms of extremism and social media use. So what can you say about those differences and how they interrelated?
I already mentioned the question of access. I think social media use gets at that access question. Those who agree report higher levels of social media use by every platform, particularly by anonymous image boards like 4chan and 8chan. So at the very least, if we think about people stumbling into these beliefs kind of accidentally, if you're on 4chan more often you're a lot more likely to run into one of these. In addition, there's some interesting work being done on information-seeking strategies online, and some sociologists have pointed out that people with different social positions have different strategies that may lead to different results. So a possibility relative to social media is that white men with graduate degrees, when they're doing research, the steps they’re taking may be different from some other groups, so they're more likely to end up at a certain point.
Relative to political extremism, that's a bit more complicated. There's definitely some exciting research that's going on about radical political beliefs and their relationship to conspiracy beliefs. Something I want to point out is that the white grad-degree men who agree are way more on the political edges, which maybe is to be expected. They're identifying as extremely liberal or extremely conservative way more often. We get this U-shape. These two taboo claims, at least according to this measure, are not right-wing phenomena. There is a big cluster of people that identify as very liberal and agree with these things as well. I suspect this measure isn't picking up on everything it could be. In the time that I've spent in politically radical spaces online and within the conspiracy milieu, the way people identify politically — there's a lot of variety to it, and “liberal” and “conservative” descriptors may not resonate with a lot of these people. But at the very least we know that people on the political fringes tend to be more charitable towards these claims.
"White grad-degree men who agree [with 'taboo' claims] are way more on the political edges, which maybe is to be expected. They identify as extremely liberal or extremely conservative way more often. We get this U-shape."
Over time, erosion of social trust seems to be related to a rise in conspiratorial beliefs. It would make sense, just in terms of people who feel skeptical of the existing system, for that to show up more, regardless of whether they are left-wing or right-wing. Do you have any thoughts about that?
This is something else I think that sociologists have to bring to the table: What's with the structural context of these situations? There's some evidence that countries with higher levels of social inequality, higher levels of corruption, tend to demonstrate or report higher rates of these beliefs. We know that it's tied to structural conditions. The collapse of institutional trust is a huge piece of this. If you look at graphs of trust in the federal government over time, or trust in the press over time, they're really at historic lows.
That has to play some role. Because when we talk about conspiracy beliefs, in the simple definition we’re talking about claims of elites doing something in private, but we’re also talking about something that counters the official narrative. So in a situation where historically few people trust the producers of the official narratives — in part the government, in part the press — we would expect people to be more doubtful of those things.
But when we talk about social trust, I don't necessarily think belief in conspiracies means a low level of social trust in general. I think it means a low level of trust in particular institutions. But in order to believe a conspiracy you have to hear it. It's probably from somebody you know, and you have to trust them when they tell you that. There's a rumor scholar, Gary Fine, who says that when trust in institutions is questioned, trust in informal networks is revealed. So there is a social trust that exists. It's much more decentralized. It's not in a particular institution and it’s social trust, rather than institutional.
One thing your paper suggested to me was looking at how beliefs in conspiracy theories co-vary, meaning what beliefs go together or tend to negate each other, and how that might change across status lines. I was specifically interested in those white male graduate-degree holders. Are there any beliefs that they accept less than other people? Do you have enough data to look at that yet?
I think enough data exists that we can probably answer that, but I don't know for sure. In this particular data set, there are none that they were less likely to believe in. For very mainstream beliefs — the idea that “one percent” of economic elites control the government and economy, the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered — these are beliefs held by 50% of the general population and also held by about 50% of white men with graduate degrees. In this data there wasn't a single belief that these white male graduate-degree holders were less interested in. That was stunning to me. I was actually very surprised by that..
But it's possible. We have these two types that I'm describing, the medical ones and the kind of taboo ones. It's possible there may be some medical ones that white men with graduate degrees are less likely to agree with. But it is hard to say, because this data clearly suggests that graduate degree holders are more into all of these claims.
We spoke earlier about “prompt selection” and things that perhaps aren't being asked about. Do you have anything specific in mind?
There's a lot of things that aren't being asked, definitely more than are being asked. At least in this paper, my starting point is the simple definition of the conspiracy belief which is, again, basically that a group of elites are plotting something in private. If that's our conceptualization, then the universe of possible things to ask about is massive.
For instance, if that's our conceptualization, why don't we ever ask about institutionally verified conspiracies? For instance, Watergate fits that definition just fine, COINTELPRO fits that definition just fine, Tuskegee fits that definition just fine. To me there seems to be a mismatch, an unacknowledged element to the definition, which is that it has to counter some official narratives. But even if we include that second part in conceptualization, there’s still tons and tons of stuff.
"Why don't we ever ask about institutionally verified conspiracies? For instance, Watergate fits that definition just fine, COINTELPRO fits that definition just fine, the Tuskegee experiment fits that definition just fine."
I read a very interesting paper this past week. This came out as a content analysis of TikTok, but it’s specifically about the conspiracy theory that Taylor Swift is secretly gay, and she's closeted and dropping all these hints in her tracks. Maybe people will say that isn't a politically consequential conspiracy theory, but it’s within the realm of conspiracy claims by any definition.
I've even heard that and I don't follow Taylor Swift news at all. It's clearly out there.
Yeah, if I had to guess, if you polled the demographics it would disproportionately be women. So that makes me think, OK, a lot of studies emphasize that men are more into this stuff. Does that have something to do with the prompts that are selected for the surveys? How does that come into play?
I bring up the Taylor Swift example to demonstrate that the realm of things under this blanket is, like, so large that trying to generalize any kind of research findings to the entire world of claims about elites doing sneaky stuff ends up being very difficult. I suspect there are claims that graduate-degree holders are more into that we haven't quite figured out yet. I suspect there are claims that women are more into that we haven't really figured out. I'd like to see a lot more, a) alignment between the conceptualization and operationalization and b) experimentation within that. We have a big world of things that fit this conceptual framework.
We’ve talked a bit about “collective identity” as a useful concept and you've said “it applies to all varieties of conspiracy cultures." Could you expand on that?
To be totally sociological, collective identity is useful in understanding all kinds of cultures more generally. Within conspiracy cultures, there's a couple things going on. If we talk about rumors, if I tell you some finding before it's published, it feels like you're in the know, it feels like you have a piece of secret information. It's exciting, it feels good. It also creates a bond between people that I think can be part of identity. So that's one level.
There's also the level that gets to the question of institutional distrust. There's a general sense in this country that, you know, people like us — whatever “us” means — are being screwed over by elites in some faraway place. We can't really see what's happening over there, we're not in the rooms where these decisions are made. I think there's a very general sense of that. And who “people like us” ends up being defined by is, I think, very important, because different people are going to understand it in different ways. There’s a general sense that there's opaque power that's screwing us. We don't really know where it is, or what's happening. You hear that kind of sentiment a lot in this milieu.
There's also collective identity more overtly. If I make the claim that white people are being replaced in this country — which to me is one of the more consequential conspiracy claims — I'm invoking a very specific identity, saying, “Hey, we collectively are under threat and need to do something about it!” So some conspiracy claims, even in the claim themselves, name the in-group or name the out-group. It will say who the “we” are, who the mysterious “they” is. Identity plays a key role there as well.
What stands out for you as the next steps? What questions need answering that follow from what you've done so far?
"A lot of people in the conspiracy milieu feel like they're being studied from afar by people that aren't talking to them at all. I think that absolutely adds to the resentment. If you were an expert in Amish culture, you'd probably want to spend time talking to Amish people."
To me, a lot of the most interesting questions are about how, when and why these beliefs matter, which I do think are better suited to qualitative methods. There's been very little in the way of qualitative inquiry into conspiracy cultures, with the big exception of Jaron Harambam, whose work has been very inspiring to me. Back to this matter of collective identity, something he points out that I find intriguing is that there are all kinds of conflicts over identity, even within the conspiracy milieu. There are people who understand themselves as aiming to get new converts to the movement, and other people who understand themselves as basically having given up and clocked out. There's all kinds of variation within the community.
Also, part of my reasoning for wanting to do qualitative research is that I feel like a lot of people in the conspiracy milieu feel like they're being studied from afar by people that aren't talking to them at all. I think that absolutely adds to the resentment.
I saw a tweet recently from somebody who is loosely in these circles that basically said, “How come none of these conspiracy theory experts are even talking to us?” If you are an expert in Amish culture, you'd probably want to spend a lot of time talking to Amish people. If I were studying the student movements that are going on right now, I'd probably be down at the encampments hanging out. It's not like believers in conspiracies are a small or fringe minority group that's super-hard to access. Some of these claims are totally mainstream, and even for the more taboo ones that you might envision would be hard to do qualitative research into, they're concentrated among graduate-degree holders. So in some sense those of us in academia are exceptionally well positioned to engage these communities at a closer level. So I definitely would like to do qualitative research in the coming years.
Finally, what's the most important question I haven’t asked? And what's the answer?
I can tell you a question that I get whenever I present my research to my undergraduates, but I'm not going to answer it. I give this whole presentation and at the end they’re like, “What are the ones that you believe in?” That's not my role as a sociologist. [Laughs.] So that’s my favorite question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)