When compared to the controlling and manipulating manner in which the US authorities have handled the 9/11 crisis, the advent of 9/11 conspiracy theories can be legitimately interpreted as an exercise in free-thought and expression, regardless of the factual content or truth value of each conspiracy. The creation of these counter-constructs are in response to the official interpretation of events that has been judged as academically failing, on top of the obvious Islamophobia and general lying through disinformation presented as fact. What conspiracy theories represent is the application of human free-thought when confronted by an oppressive state and its deliberately controlling apparatus. A conspiracy theory, regardless of its truth content, is an important device that confronts the tyranny of state originated attempts to control the thought patterns and emotional responses of its citizens.
Like the religious zealot who is continuously trying to gain converts for his or her religion, the Ancient Astronaut Theorist is continuously reacting to those who do not accept their interpretation of history, and they dichotomise the world into the ‘believers’ and ‘heretics’. This is no different to religious thinking modified to serve the purpose of perpetuating yet another myth – namely that of the early visitation to the earth by ancient astronauts.
King Arthur – at least in the earliest strata of his legend – is an indigenous Romano-British King, who embodied what has become known as
Hobsbawm’s work is popular throughout the bourgeois system because it undermines the very Marxism it claims to represent, through the careful and clever presentation of many small, but important misrepresentations of Marxist philosophy and its application. The over-all effect of this policy is a movement away from a correct Marxist analysis and toward a thoroughly (and for Hobsbawm a comfortable) bourgeois interpretation. His deliberate and illogical separation of the Russian Communist Revolution from that of the Chinese Revolution is bizarre in its certainty, and smirks of Eurocentric bias bordering on the racist. Whatever Hobsbawm motivation for this flawed analysis, it is obvious that he does not adhere to the Marxist principle of ‘internationalism’.