The point @danhind misses about @DAaronovitch's Voodoo Histories is it simply applies evidence to popular conspiracy theories, which in turn exposes them as fallacy. At no point does @DAaronovitch deny history is littered with plots and subterfuge. Simply that grand scale 'history-as-fantasy' needs lancing. It's the difference between the Dreyfuss Affair or Watergate, and 9/11 Truth, Roswell and fears of a N.W.O. The former has historical precedent, the latter is founded upon speculation and misinterpretation alone. It's possible to acknowledge a network of complicity re Murdoch - one enabled by compromised individuals seduced by power, money or both - without descending into hysteria that "they" are controlling "us". If the latter had any validity, then how has Murdoch's power collapsed so quickly when confronted by public and political will?
0 comments:
Post a Comment