In 2011, Donald Trump went on Fox News and made a claim that started an absolute wildfire in the conspiracy theory community. A theory that had been floating around the internet for years finally got the exposure it needed, and Birtherism erupted, engulfing half of the Republican party and creating a path to the White House for Mr. Trump and a path to the mainstream for conspiracy theories.

While Trump is often credited with the origins of the birtherism theory (that Barack Obama was in fact not born in the US and therefor ineligible for the presidency), its genesis lies within the Democratic party. In 2008, some supporters of then candidate Hilary Clinton circulated a 2004 email embellishing an old claim about her Democratic primary opponent Barack Obama’s “secret Muslim faith” by adding that he was in-fact born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as he had claimed. The power of anti-Muslim fear in the early 2000’s was weaponized against Barack Hussein Obama for having a Muslim-sounding name.

Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth

chain email from 2008

Though Clinton and her campaign never promoted the lie, it gained enough traction to circulate for a few years before it really took off when it started coming out of a big enough celebrity mouthpiece.

By the time Trump embraced birtherism as a theory in 2011, It had already been shot down by both parties and the majority of Americans considered the matter settled. But Trump’s statements acted as a celebrity endorsement, turning the once-settled matter into a new raging fire. With the powers of fear, celebrity, and the repetition Fox News was able to provide, birtherism finally had what it needed to flourish.

By the time Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011, it was too late. At that time, only 55% of Americans were confident he was born in the US. Its release had some effect on squashing the doubt, but not as much as you’d think. If people were arguing based on facts, perhaps its release would have had a more meaningful impact on those numbers, but since this campaign was driven more by fear, the facts just… didn’t matter.

Which brings us to the present.

How Birtherism Led to The Big Lie

While Trump eventually caved to pressure from both sides to disavow the birther theory and announced that Obama was, in fact, born here, the stage had been set. He had proven to himself and to the world that we were moving into a post-truth era where falsehoods, even once debunked, could not only be used to inspire, but could become emblems of entire movements. When Trump lost the 2020 election to Joseph R. Biden, he used many of the same tactics he had success with in birtherism. He wore denial like a badge of honor, making claims to appeal to his supporters’ emotions and repeated the message at every opportunity. The formula was simple: a theory in search of evidence.

While he continued to push this misinformation, many of his most loyal constituents, hoping to gain the favor of Trump, and thereby increase their own celebrity, repeated the claims and did his work for him. Mike Lindell (the MyPillow guy) even held a “cybersymposium” wherein he claimed he’d prove the election was stolen, only to fail to provide anything tangible. But again, we’re not dealing with scientific evidence here. Trump, Lindell and others know that. They motivate people and push their “theories” through fear and repetition.

As he now faces 91 federal and state felonies, the most severe of which are related to The Big Lie, some of this could be unraveling. Still, with nearly 70% of Republicans still believing President Joe Biden’s win was illegitimate, it may be years before this conspiracy leaves the mainstream. Until then, it might be wise to brace for another conspiracy the next time a Democratic is elected President.

The post Birtherism – How Desperation and Fear Created a New Ideology appeared first on Sean McMillan's blog.

The fact that my spell checker doesn’t recognize “chemtrails” as a word should tell you something about their existence, but here we are…

On September 7th, a Facebook user in the UK posted a video of him removing a reddish-colored layer of sand off his car with a magnet. His claim? This dust is evidence of a large government conspiracy known as “chemtrails.” The video appears to have been removed, but a similar video by another user was posted to Twitter (now X). I’m not linking them because that’s only going to drive traffic and if there’s one thing conspiracy theorists love, it’s an audience.

This event first appeared on my radar via Reuters Fact Check blog, a misinformation-busting website run by the one of the world’s biggest and most venerable news agencies. I’ll go ahead and spoil the ending for you, the story is fake- chemtrails are not responsible for an overnight coating of sand on a neighborhood in the UK. But the validity of this claim isn’t what I mean to address. Rather, I want to shine a light on how Reuters determined it was false.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the chemtrails conspiracy theory, it’s a claim that the governments are secretly releasing harmful chemicals into the atmosphere via jet exhaust. What exactly this chemical is and what its purpose might be is always left open for discussion but common claims involve sterilization, reduced life expectancy, and even mind-control.

Reuters’ Process

Here’s the original Reuters post if you’d like to follow along.

One of the most crucial techniques when studying outrageous claims like this is to consider the source. Who is telling you that the government is releasing harmful chemicals into your air via jet exhaust? Is it a trusted source such as a Harvard Research Group (who debunked the whole idea of contrails) or is it some guy on Facebook or Twitter (still now X)?

Reuters engaged in something we call lateral reading, the process of checking multiple sources for the same story to see if everyone agrees on the facts or if you’re only seeing one viewpoint. It’s called lateral because one typically reads a website top-to-bottom, but this encourages readers to hop sideways into a new browser tab and check the validity of claims before continuing down the original page.

The other thing Reuters did was check with experts. This sand must have come from somewhere, right? So by consulting with an expert on sand- say someone like Professor Barbara Maher, director of the Centre for Environmental Magnetism & Palaeomagnetism, Lancaster University or Professor Richard Harrison, head of the University of Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences, both of whom corresponded with Reuters to offer explanations into the phenomenon they were witnessing.

The sand came from the Sahara and was blown a very long distance to the UK in a well-documented northerly wind pattern. Saharan sand contains multiple minerals that are magnetic, such as magnetite and maghemite and would appear reddish in color due to the relatively high amount of iron oxide present in most samples. Makes sense right? These are all well-understood and documented occurrences in our world and they don’t need a government cover-up to make sense of the situation.

Cutting Through the Noise

This dips into one of my personal favorite philosophical tools: Occam’s Razor. In short, Occam’s Razor suggests we not make things overly complicated.

Next time you read a story or see an image online that seems completely outlandish, remember to stop reading, open a new tab, and poke around a bit and see what other sources are saying about the story. Then consider the source is it a reputable source like a Harvard Research Group or the head of a university earth sciences department, or is it a stranger on social media? Then finally, as William of Ockham (and to a lesser extent, Avril Lavigne) reminds us, don’t go and make things so complicated.

The post A Case Study in Misinformation: Chemtrails in the UK appeared first on Sean McMillan's blog.