When facts are rumoured to be conspiracy theories
Listen to article
Journalists and book authors have spent a considerable amount of time and writing to teach us all about how to do authentic research so as not to consider conspiracy theories as facts. Conspiracy theories are usually designed in such a way that they're not only entertaining for the human mind to quickly embrace it but also are quite unintelligent and helps lazy minds to settle an issue without much thinking to do about it. There's more entertainment in them than any rationality.
However, understanding the reverse is perhaps equally, if not more, important. What if certain facts are wrongly understood to be conspiracy theories because they're too cheesy and too unrealistic. Before I delve into that, let me give you a bit of a context.
I grew up in Pakistan watching Hollywood movies. There would be violent scenes of guns being used and serial killers killing innocent people without reason or remorse. I always thought movie makers had to spice things up for entertainment purposes and that in the real world things weren't this extreme.
Then I came to America. After more than a decade of living here, I realised what they showed in the movies didn't even amount to 10% of the truth. The truth here is a lot more violent and a lot worse.
When it comes to Israel and America, I always heard from almost all sources that usually spin out conspiracy theories that America was owned and controlled by the Jewish lobbies. I am sure you've seen the film The Arrivals. It was entertaining but quite conspiracy theories filled. Well, maybe not so much.
Israel controls America from within is not a conspiracy theory. Almost every, if not every, politician comes to public office shining up his credentials that he or she will be a fierce and loyal defender of Israel. The United States gives billions to Israel, which uses a good amount of that money to donate to politicians and public officer holders through lobbying groups such as AIPAC. Then they're asked to make policies and laws that will be good for Israel but harmful for America most of the time. It's a vicious cycle.
In 2017, there was a massive hurricane that hit Texas. It was called Hurricane Harvey. Businesses and personal properties were damaged. My business, car and other items were damaged completely. The state of Texas was providing relief help only to those who'd pledge not to boycott Israel. I mean think about it for a minute; I being an American citizen and an American business am required to show loyalty to a foreign country in order to get help from my own country. That fact alone is crazier than the most bizarre conspiracy theories that ever existed. Israel uses American money to control America.
One might conclude that it's money. Not so fast. Because the Saudis have a lot more money than a mere few billions. No American politician sticks a Saudi flag outside their office with the text "I stand with Saudi Arabia".
The Israelis have spent almost half a century, if not more, in creating this false narrative and convinced the American people of it that the Holy Bible commands that Israel must be protected, that American values align very neatly with Jewish teachings, that the interests of America and Israel are one and the same, that Israel is the victim, that they are the chosen people who are the rightful owners of that land because they were there 2000 years ago.
None of it is true but these falsehoods are enough tools to scare any politician who might have funny ideas about the freedom of Palestine. AIPAC uses scare tactics to remind such politicians about the money and the zombified, if you will, electorate that stays high on the 'chosen ones' nonsense.
Once this chokehold is understood, then every nonsense that America does starts making sense.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Israel-Iran conflict — how the world will change post-war
Listen to article The Iran-Israel short war of ballistic missile exchanges and air strikes is over. Yet the context under which this short war was fought had a deep effect on how independent states view the existing international environment. The challenge for the great powers, the regional hegemons and the medium and the ordinary powers that rally around them is simple: can this international environment in which international norms and laws are violated be allowed to endure? Does it need restructuring or can it be left unchanged? In the case of former there is all the likelihood of another sovereign state being bullied and attacked by a ruthless power; and in the case of latter the setting of a similar event can be prevented and unjust attacks on sovereign states may be stopped from reoccurring. Contextually, there is a greater realisation in the world that terrorism is being used as a pretext by individual states to further their national interests. Particularly in the case of Israel and India, two states that hold different interpretation on the matter of terrorism from rest of the world. Both states have demonstrated that diplomacy can be set aside, pushed back and unjust military action can be taken to punish states considered weak on flimsy grounds. Two matters of diplomatic significance, both related to India and Israel, suggest that there is hope that 'Islamophobia' that both these states suffer from may no more be the sickness with which the rest of the world may suffer. The American president's interference in the Indo-Pak conflict and his political preference to host Pakistan's military chief in White House is a clear message to India that Washington doesn't agree with the Indian position and its terrorism context that created the circumstances for its unwarranted aggression against Pakistan. The victim scale that had long been tilted in India's favour seems to be settling back in the balance and the US may have set the future global trend of no more viewing Pakistan from the Indian position of blaming Pakistan as a terrorist state. Add to this the recent diplomatic setback that India suffered in the meeting of the Defence Ministers in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), when the Indian defence minister refused to sign a draft of joint statement which omitted a reference to the 22 April Pahalgam terror attack in occupied Kashmir. If there was evidence that India could share with the rest of the participating countries, surely the Indian position would have been strong in advocating the inclusion of this terrorist attack in the draft of the joint statement. Pakistan has consistently maintained the absence of such evidence and also maintained a consistent diplomatic posture that encouraged India to hold bilateral dialogue. But India believes more in bullying and subjugating Pakistan rather than treating it as an equal. In case of Israel, no American President has used the language that President Trump used when Israel violated the ceasefire agreement of which he was a guarantor. There is no doubt that President Trump is the most pro-Israel president that America ever had but when it came to the possibility of American interests being hurt, President Trump sounded determined to force Israel to change its behaviour against Iran. Tested and jolted by recent events, the international environment is not likely to remain the same. Wars are being fought in a manner unknown in previous history and how the nation states will change and adjust will determine what kind of international environment will prevail as we approach 2050. The lead up to 2050 and the pathway that leads the world there cannot be discussed without mentioning the role of the other three great powers in determining how the world travels on this pathway. Recent events prove that the US has failed to make the world safe. It has failed to construct the rules-based system in which international laws could be respected and it has also failed to ensure that states cooperate and not engage in conflicts. In case of America, it is sufficient to say that its thesis of end of history has not ended. The coming back of history is the new antithesis and under the return of great power competition this antithesis will be written by China and Russia. How America brought the world to the ending notion of its liberal order of internationalism is a topic that requires detailed answering and needs to be dealt with in a separate space and time. Here I would just like to conclude by giving some of the assumptions on how the world and the international system that runs it may be restructured given the context under which the recent wars have been fought. Dynastic politics will be on the decline and nation states ideas of freedom and liberty will not remain the same. More and more nationalism will hatch as authoritarianism will mate more frequently with ending civil liberties as more and more military preparedness will demand quashing of domestic dissent as national economies will reorganise to equip their militaries to adjust against the shifting military capabilities between the states and to maintain the fracturing balance of power. Military preparedness will trump political mindsets and create military mindsets and eventually more and more military states. Russophobia and China-phobia are considered as the greatest geopolitical threat of 21st Century. These two diseases from which the West suffers will contribute to how these great powers will challenge the international system together with the states that will rally around them. The US will regret mistreating the twenty-six years of unipolarity (1991-2017) by favouring realistic and militaristic foreign policy in promoting the order of liberal internationalism that only backfired. Disastrous foreign policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran is what constituted the current international system of chaos and anarchy and which is hardly what the world deserved as America led it as a sole superpower. Nation states will no longer tolerate being at the centre of any American intrigue. Autocracies will demand intellectual climate that should support nationalism as guns will be preferred over butter in a national environment in which military preparedness will be expedited. States either grow or decay but in a reordered world fashioned by the Indian and Israeli military aggression most states will neither grow nor decay, they will spend more time, effort and resources to stay where they are as growth of militarism and not socialism will become the order of the day.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
US SC curtails power of individual judges to block Trump
WASHINGTON: A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents. Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had 'a whole list' of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
'No political space in sight for PTI'
Political space for opposition parties, particularly the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), may have further shrunk after the establishment bolstered its ties with the West, as analysts suggest that the beleaguered party's chances of making a political comeback during the current regime were virtually nonexistent. However, they caution that the budding relationship with the Trump administration could be a volatile, double-edged sword for the powers that be. Former Punjab caretaker chief minister and senior political analyst Hasan Askari said that PTI has no political future under the current dispensation, which he described as being firmly controlled by a powerful establishment. According to him, the establishment has only grown stronger in the wake of two mini-wars in the region. 'This setup will not cede any space to PTI, as it would mark the beginning of their own undoing. They cannot afford for PTI to do politicking on the streets. As long as they have power, they will keep Imran behind bars,' Askari said. He further noted that no government since Benazir Bhutto's first stint in power had ceded this much ground to the military as the current one has. Askari said that the current setup, which derives its strength "from the very top," could last for a considerable period. However, when it falls, 'it will go down like a house of cards'. He added that PTI will likely outlive this regime and will 'rise from the ruins' the moment it is granted political space. Regarding Pakistan's relations with the US, he said that Islamabad's 'relations with America will last for as long as their interests and ours are aligned'. Pakistan may benefit in the short term, he added, but this relationship is contextual. 'Tomorrow, when our utility diminishes, so will the warmth in the relationship.' Another political analyst, Rasool Bakhsh Rais, said that while PTI may currently be in a bind, it was rapidly regaining ground. 'PML-N and PPP are steadily losing what little public legitimacy they had,' he said. Rais pointed to the Supreme Court's recent decision to hand over PTI's reserved seats to PML-N and PPP, saying it 'has exposed the underbelly of this hybrid-plus regime'. He said that the West has a long history of supporting dictatorships and autocratic regimes when it suits its interests. 'Even in our case, American support for the establishment is only delegitimising the political government. The system might have gained strength, but constitutionally it has become frail.' He added that PTI founder Imran Khan would not buckle under pressure and would stand his ground. 'Imran Khan is a beacon of hope for Pakistan's political system. His stand is in the interest of the country,' Rais said. He noted that while the current dispensation may ignore public perception for now, 'soon they will understand what the opinion of a common man is worth'. Another analyst, Salman Abid, agreed that cordial ties with the US come at a price. He described the US-Pakistan relationship as purely transactional. 'America has significant strategic interests in this region, and it sees Pakistan as crucial to achieving those goals,' he said, adding that this friendship would not come as a 'free lunch". Abid expressed concern that Pakistan's growing closeness with the US could distance it from its long-time ally, China. 'This system has no political weight, and it will continue to function only so long as it has wind in its sails,' he said. He warned that such power structures in Pakistan have a long history of failing spectacularly.
