Capability, Interest and Activity: How to assess conspiracy theories

Conspiracies exist. That the media reported the poisoning of the Skripals is undeniable. If the stories are true, there was a conspiracy to poison them. If not, there was a conspiracy to poison them. But in either case, there was a conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories exist but not all conspiracy theories are true. That the vast majority of conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh are false is obvious from the fact that they are quickly discarded and ignored when proven false by events. Satanic ritual pedophilia never took place in the basement of Comet Ping Pong as claimed by Alex Jones as the building does not have a basement.

False conspiracy theories are often floated as a means of muddying the waters and concealing the true conspiracies. Trump’s personal lawyer recently admitted that at the same time that Trump was accusing Hilary Clinton of doing something ‘bad’ with her emails, he was negotiating a spurious ‘licensing fee of over’ $200 million be paid to Trump in return for unspecified changes in US foreign policy. The fake conspiracy served to obscure the real one.

The same dynamic is seen on the Internet in the Skripal matter. The obvious explanation that Russian intelligence services were responsible for an attack on a former Russian spy with a Russian nerve agent was to be ignored because it was too obvious. Instead we must believe that the true master mind was the British Prime Minister, Theresa May or if not her Israel or George Soros but certainly not Putin.

It is of course always necessary to consider the possibility of a false flag operation but a conspiracy to frame another party in a conspiracy is by necessity a much more complicated and risky conspiracy. For a false flag operation to succeed, the objective it has been performed to secure must be achieved before the false flag nature of the operation is exposed. The fact that Hitler was behind the Reichstag fire is proved by evidence that planning for the coup that followed began before the fire was set.

Gaslighting

A running joke in the BBC comedy series ‘Allo ‘allo is that the protagonist is constantly being caught in the arms of one of his mistresses by his wife who is bullied out of the obvious conclusion with a convoluted explanation beginning with the words ‘you stupid woman’.

The use of insult and derision to bully people out of believing the facts is known as gaslighting. It is stupid to imagine that Putin is a cold blooded murderer, we are told. Only an idiot would believe the Western propaganda. The West wants to start a war with Russia and anyone believing the conspiracy theories against him are their useful fools. Don’t be stupid, be smart! Trust the man who invaded Ukraine and Georgia on spurious pretenses and whose political opponents keep dying in mysterious or violent circumstances.

Gaslighting is often used in combination with a shift in the standards of evidence. First the highest possible standards of evidence are applied to exclude the obvious conclusion. The theory that is left must then be accepted on no evidence at all.

There is of course no more accomplished gaslighter than Donald Trump who regularly tells us that we are stupid for believing facts that are later proved true. We were stupid to believe the dozens of allegations of sexual harassment against him despite his on tape admission that he likes to grab women ‘by the pussy’. It was ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ to believe any of the claims in the Steele dossier compiled by the former head of MI6 Moscow station. At this point, the only claim that has not been proved substantially true is the existence of the pee-tape.

Derision and ridicule are the weapons used to attack genuine and credible conspiracy theories but they could also be regarded as the justified and correct response to many nonsensical conspiracy theories such as the ‘moon landing hoax’ or the theory promoted by Jerry Falwell that Bill Clinton and Vince Foster had used Air Force One to smuggle cocaine. So how do we know which is which? What objective criteria can we apply to determine if a conspiracy theory is Plausible, Busted or Confirmed? I apply the CIA criteria: Capability, Interest and Activity.

Capability

The first and most important criteria is capability: Is the purported actor actually capable of engaging in the purported conspiracy?

When we look at the moon landing hoax theories, the resources required to perform the hoax are implausible in the extreme. Any hoax would have had to have been good enough to convince the Soviets that the Americans had landed successfully for a start.

In the Skripal matter, it is true that many Western laboratories could have produced a novichok nerve agent. But the idea that the British intelligence service would murder someone on the orders of Theresa May is utterly absurd. Furthermore Skripal was not just anyone, he was a Russian defector under their protection.

Western leaders do not have a cadre of willing assassins on call to murder people. Putin does. If we are to assess the plausibility of various conspiracy theories on the basis of capability, only Putin had the necessary capability.

Interest

The second criteria is interest: Do the predictable outcomes of the conspiracy serve the interests of the purported actor?

In the moon landing hoax theory, it was certainly in the interest of the US to fake the moon landing but only if they could not achieve the same end legitimately and only if they stood no chance of the fraud being exposed. Since the NASA program was the focus of the most intense espionage activity from the Soviet Union, it is impossible to see how the alleged conspirators would not have expected to be exposed.

In the Skripal matter, relations between the UK and Russia had already collapsed in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The idea that Theresa May was in any need of a pretext to impose sanctions on Russia is belied by the fact that there were already abundant reasons to act on should she choose.

Putin’s interest in murdering a former spy who defected is clear: To threaten anyone else who might betray him. Like Putin’s earlier use of polonium to murder another Russian defector, the use of a novichok nerve agent ensured that everyone would know Putin was responsible while allowing Putin and the Russian authorities to rub further salt in the wound by giving implausible denials.

Activities

The third criteria is prior activities: Does the purported conspiracy fit a pattern of similar activities?

In the Skripal matter, Theresa May has many political enemies, none of which have died in remotely suspicious circumstances. But Putin’s enemies keep dying in mysterious circumstances and at an alarming pace.

Comparison

If we consider the alternative explanations for the Skripal poisoning side by side, it is obvious that the theory Theresa May is behind the murder in a ‘false flag’ operation is highly implausible while the theory Putin ordered the murder was always highly plausible even before the exposure of the identity of the two GRU assassins as Col. Anatoliy Chepiga and Dr. Alexander Yevgenyevich Mishkin proved the matter beyond any doubt.

This conclusion will not of course prevent the many Russian trolls on the Internet claiming that it is ‘stupid’ and ‘naive’ to believe that Putin ordered the Skripal poisoning but it is hard to see how anyone who is not a Russian troll would attempt to use such gaslighting tactics to deny the fact.