The reaction to the massacre wrought by the child-murderer, Breivik, included some of the best and some of the worst commentary I have seen. A number of commentators produced thoughtful, informed and insightful reaction. Others disgraced themselves.
For example, the Chair of Waltham Forest Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Ellie Merton, used her Facebook page to inform her followers that Breivik’s actions were an “Israeli Govt sponsored operation”. You will see from this status update that she is now complaining that when we reported her lunacy, we were “breaking copyright and privacy rules“.
Similarly, see this jaw-dropper from the increasingly nutty Frank Gaffney. Gaffney, remember, presents himself as an expert on Islamist politics. And, so it seems, his “expertise” leads him to conclude that Breivik’s rambling manifesto is (wait for it) a false flag operation by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Seriously.
This is his reasoning:
It cries out for a thorough investigation as to whether it was in fact an authentic piece of his own creation, whether it’s a false flag operation, whether it actually was meant to do anything other than to contribute to Sharia’s efforts to suppress criticism and awareness of its agenda. Until we know the answers to some of those questions, I’m not going to go too far down the road of saying what its consequences might be.
When prompted, Gaffney agrees “absolutely” with the suggestion that the Muslim Brotherhood might be behind this supposed false flag operation.
Let’s just take a step back and unpack this reasoning.
If the Muslim Brotherhood was really behind the Breivik Manifesto, Breivik himself must also be working for the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not credible that the Muslim Brotherhood could put together a 1,500 word “false flag” document in the couple of days following the massacre. Moreover, even if they did so, how could the Muslim Brotherhood be sure that Breivik would not denounce the document as a forgery? Ergo, Breivik must also be a Muslim Brotherhood activist. Stands to reason!
But let us take this one stage further. The notion that Breivik was a Muslim Brotherhood tool is so absurd and unlikely, that anybody making such a claim immediately beclowns himself, and undermines the causes which they espouse. And who would have most to gain by undermining Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy? Why, surely, the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
Come to mention it, have you seen Frank Gaffney’s beard. Who else do we know who has short cropped beards like that?
I think we could be on to something, here.
But seriously, both cases tell us something about the perils of monomania. There’s value in developing genuine expertise or a campaigning focus in particular area. However, it is important to take a lesson from experimental science: guard against the “observer effect”. If you understand the world through the aspect of a particularly narrow lens, you will start to bend and distort all evidence, so that it supports the conclusion you know to be true.
These are the roots of consparicism: where the absence of proof itself becomes the greatest proof of a powerful conspiracy. Because who but the Muslim Brotherhood/Mossad would have the ability to pull off such a trick, while leaving absolutely no evidence at all.
When conspiracy theorising replaces informed commentary, and particularly when it focuses on the supposed actions of Jews or Muslims, we really ought to be concerned.
