John Butler

Gideon, if by conspiracy theorist you mean someone who thinks the FT: 1) had a duty to investigate the possible lab origins of Covid, 2) to offer a counter argument to lockdown based on economic reasoning and 3) who thinks that it is unfair to disparage poles who believe the Russians may have been responsible for Smolensk - especially in the context of the establishment simultaneously propagating the view that Putin is responsible for almost everything else evil in the world - then, I guess, yes I am one. Though in my view even this is a misrepresentation of my position, since I have not at any point asserted the counter narratives are definitely true or that I have superior insight into them. On the contrary my point is that the intellectually honest thing to do when there is an ambiguity (or absence of evidence) is to admit this is not equal to evidence of absence. If anything, I’ve objected to the automatic dismissal or mockery of theories that question official narratives just because they tend to be beliefs held by lower socio-economic classes or those of a different political persuasion. In the case of Smolensk, I think I was pretty clear. My complaint was not related to the idea that the “conspiracy theory” was credible when you said it wasn’t. It was that it was unfair of you to mock and speak badly of people who, due to the complex history of Poland, have an understandable mistrust of Russians. By doing so, you were effectively implying they are intellectually inferior to yourself and that intuitions informed by their specific lived experience are unjustified (even though the FT is more than happy to argue the opposite for the intuitions of other socio economic classes.) It’s all the more glaring when one realises the modern intelligentsia doesn’t seem to have a problem normalising unsubstantiated “conspiracy theories” if they happen to serve their own agenda. And herein lies the problem, as far as I see it. The public are expected to overlook gaping ambiguities and/or sketchy evidence when it serves the establishment agenda but apply larger than life scrutiny, even to plain as day evidence, when it runs counter to that agenda. This is an attack both on common-sense-making and intelligence itself. All unsubstantiated claims should be held to equal scrutiny. And all ambiguities deserve investigation if they are important enough. Allowing obvious holes in official narratives to persist just because it wouldn’t be the done thing to question the authority of those telling us black is white and white is black, is the far madder thing to accept in a democracy with an alleged free press. Yet as it stands there is a much higher burden of evidence for one side of the argument. For example the FT had no qualms insinuating Putin was responsible for prigozhin’s plane crash. As for the football, you’ve again missed the point of my critique. I have no idea if the claims that Argentina is being given an easy ride on purpose are true or not. Frankly I don’t care. I totally bow to your superior knowledge on all matters related to football. I just don’t take kindly to the idea that anyone who suggests something may be awry is by definition a deplorable idiot, especially given the number of people who seem to think something is up. It is sententious. Just look at the comments on your own article. People have a right to question things without immediately being dismissed as idiots. And by the way, slurring those who criticise you as “conspiracy theorists” is an intellectually lazy rhetorical device.