Brendon Marotta

Conspiracy theories have moved from being a taboo issue to a heated issue.

This is a very important distinction:

• Taboo issues are ones you can’t talk about.
• Heated issues are ones people heatedly debate.

Examples:

• Taboo issue: female sexual abusers
• Heated issue: abortion

People lose friends over hot button issues.

For example, on abortion, some people can’t be friends with someone if they support “murdering a baby” or “controlling women’s bodies.”

However, people do talk about those issues.

Prior to coronavirus lockdowns, people reacted to conspiracy theories the way people react to a taboo – uncomfortably changing the topic or dismissing the conversation entirely.

Now they heatedly debate the evidence. Big shift.

What This Change Means

Although the major focus of the heated conspiracy debates has been coronavirus and lockdowns, this trend extends even to conspiracies unrelated to the virus. Regardless of your perspective on conspiracy theories, this is a major social shift that has implications for other issues. The point of this post is not to take a side on any particular theory, but note the change in discourse.

The way people handle hot button issues is different, even if it looks similar.

Conspiracy theories are way more popular than anyone in the mainstream wants to admit. Just look at the numbers that recent conspiracy documentaries are drawing. This is not “fringe,” but as mainstream as any other special interest or identity group.

The nature of taboos is that they can keep very common from public discussion or connection. For example, think about how being gay was treated in previous eras. Although common throughout history, the taboo prevented those who were from connecting around their shared identity. Many gay writers describe feeling like they were the “only one” who felt the way they did, only to later learn there were many more like them than they could have imagined. Once the taboo was lifted, those who shared that identity become a social force.

Similarly, as the taboo around conspiracy theories lifts, there may be a lot of questions that become okay to ask in public – even if some still react the way a pro-choice person might react if you asked “why do you support murdering babies” or a pro-life person might react if you asked, “why do you want to enslave women’s bodies?”

You can see this trend even in corporate media. Large media companies aren’t ignoring the massive views conspiracy material is getting. Instead, they are writing “debunking” articles and debating the claims of these theories. This is the way you handle a heated issue, not a taboo. Heated issues are argued, taboos are ignored or assumed bad from the premise of the articles that do acknowledge them.

Now, the debate is here.

---

For more recent writing on conspiracy narratives check out:

• The Added Meaning Of Political Narratives
• Your Conspiracy Narratives Are Disempowering You

And subscribe to my email list here.

Virtually all medical authorities – Fauci, WHO, etc. – say “masks don’t work.” Yet, conspiracy theorists frame wearing a mask as conformity to these people. Why?

Conspiracy types have an identity around not conforming. Coronavirus Task Force leader Anthony Fauci told them not to wear masks. Conspiracy theorists also don’t want to wear a mask, but they need a “fake because” to show how not wearing masks is still rebellion. Hence, the “mask of silence” meme and the idea that wearing a mask is symbolic of being silenced by medical authorities

One of the common responses to my recent post on conspiracy narratives was:

You don’t understand! Elites are really are pushing for control! Are you saying that they aren’t trying to push for greater control?!”

What if I accept everything you say as true, but just adding different meaning?

Added Meaning In Narratives

The meaning you add to something could be shown by the phrase so that means.

For example, suppose the fact of a situation is: “My wife did not put away the dishes last night.”

That is a fact. What meaning could I add to that?

Suppose someone created a narrative from that fact: “My wife did not put away the dishes last night so that means she must not love me.”

You might object that it doesn’t mean that. She could have just forgotten.

“You don’t understand!” they protest. “She really didn’t put them away! Are you saying that the dishes aren’t on the counter?!”

Of course not. You’re objecting to the narrative created around that fact, not the facts themselves.

Narratives often imply certain actions. If they were to take this narrative further they might write:

“My wife did not put away the dishes last night so that means she must not love me so that means I should yell at her until she does what I want.”

Obviously, just because someone leaves the dishes out does not mean they deserve verbal abuse. If you told that person “hey, don’t yell at your wife” and they started debating the truth of whether or not the dishes were on the counter, you would think they missed the point of what they were saying.

Even if the dishes were left on the counter, then it doesn’t follow that your wife doesn’t love you or that the best solution is to yell at her.

Here are some other narratives or meaning you could add to that.

“My wife did not put away the dishes last night so that means I need to do a better job communicating my wants and needs.”

“My wife did not put away the dishes last night so that means I should just put the dishes away myself.”

“My wife did not put away the dishes last night so that means I should have a conversation with her about who handles what responsibilities around the house.”

All of these narratives would probably lead to a better relationship than if you yelled at your wife over the dishes.

However, you could reach a better relationship even from a false narrative. For example:

“My wife did not put away the dishes last night so that means that the evil alien which most people know as the devil caused her to sin by forgetting her wifely duties so that means I should show her love in order to bring her back into God’s light.”

If the end result of this narrative is that you tell your wife you love her, it might be a better narrative than one that leads you to verbally abuse her, even if the narrative is obviously false.

By the way, all the same principles apply to conspiracy and political narratives.

Added Meaning In Conspiracies

Suppose the facts of a conspiracy narrative are “Elites are pushing for greater control of our lives.”

We can debate this fact, but let’s assume it’s true.

One added meaning of this narrative is “Elites are pushing for greater control of our lives so that means they are evil and deliberately trying to harm us.”

Even this is debatable. What if they want more control because they think it will make our lives safer and are just misguided do-gooders?

Just like your wife leaving dishes on the counter might “harm” you (though on a much smaller and less significant scale), it doesn’t mean she doesn’t love you. Likewise, elites could just be doing what they think is “good” even though it’s actually deeply harmful.

But again, let’s assume this is true and condense the narrative to “Elites are trying to do things that will harm us.”

How does that mean you should respond?

Most conspiracy theorists I’ve seen add the meaning “Elites are trying to do things that will harm us so that means we should constantly get the information out on social media.”

On a personal level that looks like “Elites are trying to do things that will harm us so that means I should constantly post about it to my 200 Facebook friends.”

Why? Why is this the action? Even if the first statement is true, does it really imply the second? Even if your wife left the dishes out because she doesn’t love you, does it really mean the best solution is to yell at her?

When I write about conspiracy narratives, I’m actually not disputing the conspiracy part or the first part of the narrative. I’m disputing the second. Why is constantly posting information the solution to elite evil, and not something else?

Here are some alternative narratives:

“Elites are trying to do things that will harm us so that means I should join a political activist group so that I know other people in my area interested in resisting them and am not alone in this struggle.”

“Elites are trying to do things that will harm us so that means I should run for local sheriff or support a candidate who will choose not to enforce certain laws.” (Small town sheriffs often have this power.)

“Elites are trying to do things that will harm us so that means I should buy bitcoin and property in locations outside their control where I won’t be noticed by them.”

These narratives may or may not be true. Yet, all of them would lead to greater resistance than “Elites are trying to do things that will harm us so that means I should post on Facebook and Twitter.”

In fact, even if the first part is false, wouldn’t these narratives still lead to a better or more interesting life? Even if the first part is true, wouldn’t a narrative that leads you to post on Facebook alone all day still lead to a worse or less interesting life?

Narratives lead you to action. Could you also achieve radical action from non-conspiracy narrative or even an entirely false narrative?

Added Meaning In Mainstream Narratives

Once you understand the process of added meaning, you can see it in mainstream narratives.

For example, the narrative of elites is:

“Coronavirus is a deadly disease so that means we need to lockdown society until we can universally vaccinate everyone.”

If the first part is true, does it really imply the second part? Why if coronavirus is so deadly does it mean locking every individual down in their home and vaccinating them is the only solution?

Here is an alternative narrative from the same premise.

“Coronavirus is a deadly disease so that means we need to re-organize society into 150-person local communities that produce their own food, clothing, and resources.”

You could continue that narrative: “Centralized distribution centers like Amazon, Walmart, Instacart, etc. create infection points. We as a society need to start growing our own food on our lawns and raising livestock so that you can get your food from your neighbors and no one ever had to leave their neighborhood again.”

Elites might not protest that narrative. “But that would destroy our global financial system!” “Ah,” you’d reply. “So you’re saying there is a higher value than stopping coronavirus?” This narrative would force them to reveal that their solution makes people dependent on multinational corporations and grabs power for them, whereas the 150-personal local community solution puts power in the hands of local communities from the same premise.

If you accepted the mainstream narrative and began forming a local commune or intentional community, wouldn’t this be more radical than if you accepted a conspiracy narrative and sat at home posting on Facebook all day? Which leads to a better relationship?

The problem with elite narratives is not the facts. Any narrative can be drawn from a set of facts. The problem is the meaning they add to them. However, the same can be said of conspiracy narratives. Any narrative that leads to you to feeling powerless, disconnected, or unable to take any action does not serve you. It is possible for all the facts of a story to be true, but your narrative about them to be false.

What narratives are you telling yourself about the current situation? What action does it imply you take?

---

By the way, you read this blog post so that means you should subscribe to my email list. What’s the matter, are you saying you didn’t read the blog post? Subscribe here.

Political narratives often have two parts – the facts, and implied conclusion.

One popular conspiracy narrative is that Bill Gates and other elites want to institute mandatory vaccines, which will create greater suffering for the world and greater control for them.

When most people try to debate these narratives, they look at the facts. “Well, actually, it won’t be mandatory, and vaccines are good for you, so…” However, the implications are equally debatable.

Suppose you were to accept this narrative about Gates as true. What are the implications? What should you do in response to that narrative?

Most people pushing this narrative assume that it means you should “resist” in some way by “sharing the information.” However, if you believe that there are a group of elites who run the media, medical system, government, etc. how will “sharing the information” stop them? What will that actually accomplish?

The “share the information” conclusion leads to exactly the same place as the mainstream narratives: stay home and post your political opinions on social media.

If the conclusion of this narrative is that it makes you feel so powerless that all you can do to resist is stay home and post on Facebook and Twitter… who does this narrative really serve?

Even the people crafting conspiracy narratives only offer consumption as a way to resist. “Buy my book and share it everywhere.” Why? How will this stop the government?

However, you can draw multiple conclusions from any given narrative. Why is “share the information” the only conclusion this narrative can lead to? What if instead, the conclusion you drew was that you need to join a political activist group, buy property outside the United States, train for future civil conflicts… etc. Wouldn’t these all be potential conclusions you could draw from that conspiracy narrative?

In fact – you could draw those conclusions from other more mainstream narratives. Suppose you believed that coronavirus was a deadly disease that could only be stopped through universal vaccination. Couldn’t you draw the conclusion from that mainstream narrative that existing medical authorities are too incompetent to get the job done (look how they handled coronavirus), and the only way to stay safe is to become the dictator of an island nation that restricts all travel? Wouldn’t accepting the mainstream narrative be more radical if it leads you to dedicate your energy to overthrowing island nations rather than posting on social media? Who would be more radical and more likely to create change?

I’ve found in talking with conspiracy theorists about this that they are so used to debating the facts they’ve never had anyone engage their ideas like a text, drawing multiple interpretations and conclusions. Even if everything conspiracy theorists said was true, there are multiple narratives you could draw from their ideas. Are you really as powerless as these narratives suggest?

P.S. I’ve got a book coming out soon that will explain how you can actually “resist.” Subscribe to my email list to get a free chapter when it comes out.

No-evidence medicine is all around us:

• “There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission of coronavirus.”
• “There is no evidence masks work to prevent transmission.”
• “There is no evidence of airborne transmission of COVID-19.”
• “There is no evidence that early life trauma affects people later in life.”
• “There is no evidence that infant circumcision causes long-term harm.”
• “There is no evidence that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.”

No-evidence medicine is the idea that because a practitioner or organization is not aware of the evidence for an idea then there must not be any evidence, and the idea can be dismissed without further inquiry.

You’ve encountered no evidence medicine if you’ve ever had this exchange:

“Do you have a study for that?”
“Yes.” *provides study*
“Well, I’ve never heard of that study before!”

Or this exchange::

“We don’t have any evidence of that.”
“Well, shouldn’t we do some research?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because there is no evidence!”

No-evidence medicine is a form of narcissism. When children hide their eyes, they think the world has gone away. Likewise, practitioners of no-evidence medicine think if they pretend the evidence isn’t there, the idea they ignore ceases to be true.

When a practitioner of no-evidence medicine is forced to acknowledge the evidence, they will never admit they once argued the opposite. Or if they do, they will say “but how could we have known!” as if there weren’t others trying to show them the evidence.

The response of medical organizations, media, and politicians to COVID-19 has provided many examples of no-evidence medicine:

Have any of these groups acknowledged that up until February they were calling COVID-19 “just the flu” and telling people to go out?

I also wrote a whole article detailing the no-evidence medicine medical establishments were practicing around COVID-19 that you can read here.

Another example: January 24 the World Health Organization wrote about potential COVID019 treatment Chloroquine that “there is insufficient evidence to support its further investigation.” In other words, ‘there is no-evidence… and don’t go researching to find more!’

Evidence-based medicine is about admitting what you do not know and researching it further. No-evidence medicine is about saying that what you currently know is the sum of all possible knowledge and refusing to research it further.

• Evidence-based medicine: “We don’t know, so we should research it further.”
• No-evidence medicine: “We don’t know and don’t want to, so don’t research it further.”

You can tell where no-evidence medicine is being practiced by what is not being researched. For example, in my documentary American Circumcision interview subjects bring up how there are no longitudinal studies on circumcision, and certainly none on its impact on men’s feelings or psychological experience.

The next time you see someone say there is “no evidence” of something, see if they are open to evidence. If not, you are talking to a practitioner of “no-evidence medicine” not evidence-based medicine.

Read More: People Will Die If The Medical Establishment Censors COVID-19 Discussion