An Open Letter to Naomi Klein (I Wonder What You Mean by "Conspiracy Culture")

For this post, I have written an open letter to Naomi Klein regarding her recent book Doppelganger (2023). Here are a couple of excerpts:

Instead of looking at it in this way, Noami, you seem to poke fun at the phrase “conspiracy culture.” You seem to use it to ridicule those who have been attempting to look behind the veil of authoritarian secrecy to see what the public-private partnership of domination has been up to.

The difficulty I am having with your brilliant book, Naomi, is the number of times you have simply assumed that some idea is true, without you applying your considerable research ability to ask insightful questions. I thought you would question, as the “Other Naomi” has, the authoritative sources that you have evidently turned to for your answers. It would have been great if your book contained the answers you had uncovered as a result of a deep inquiry into these matters.

I have long admired your work, which is why I feel so disappointed by where you have ended up regarding the idea of “conspiracy culture,” mRNA vaccines, and other authoritarian measures that have been deployed by the U.S. government (the CDC, the FDA, and, by extension, the World Health Organization).

---

Dear Naomi (if I may),

I have read with interest your fascinating book Doppelganger and what you have to say about “conspiracy culture.” Your book raises some questions for me, and I’d like to share some of them with you.

For quite a long time I’ve been fascinated by the question, What does it mean to know something? How do we know what we claim we know? How does our cognition work? What role do metaphors and other imaginative operations of the human mind play in the formation of the reality we experience both individually and collectively?

We could also ask, On what basis does the person you metaphorically call your “doppelganger” (Naomi Wolf) claim “to know” things that you prefer to call “dangerous” and “conspiracy.” One example is what she claims to know as a result of her and the team of researchers she worked with, wading through the massive number of Pfizer documents that the U.S. FDA wanted to keep hidden from the public for some seventy-five years (they had nothing to hide, right?).

Take anything we claim we know. Perhaps we read it somewhere. Perhaps we heard it from a parent when we were little (e.g. “look both ways before you cross the street”; “never get in a car with strangers”). Or perhaps we know it because we learned it from a teacher (“Columbus discovered America”) or (“Pluto is a planet”) (it’s been down graded to a “dwarf planet”).

Perhaps we learned it from a trusted friend, or from someone who has a Ph.D. in some field of knowledge. In that case, we might say we “know” it, because it came from “an authority figure,” or an authoritative government agency, such as the FDA or the CDC and therefore we “know” it to be solid, trustworthy information.

To assume that something is true is to accept with certainty that it is true, usually without question or doubt, and often without proof (axioms, i.e., “taken for granted truths without proof”). Suppose I have accepted with certainty that some piece of information is true, but then I begin asking questions and come across clarifying information which reveals it was never true, or is no longer accepted as true.

As a Shawnee/ Lenape (“Indigenous”) person, I have spent several decades studying the history of how the United States has used a claim of a right domination against the original nations and peoples of this Turtle Island continent, a subject Doppelganger thankfully touches upon to some extent.

I have intensively studied the way the United States and Canada have enacted genocidal policies against our nations and peoples, and how many times those two countries have violated the treaties made with our Native nations. My work dovetails with a phrasing used by author Bell Hooks. You quote an important line of hers but do not expand upon: “systems of domination in Western society.” I phrase this as “The Domination Code” and the “Global System of Domination.”

In keeping with those findings, I know that the United States and Canada have lied to and cheated all our nations and peoples on a massive scale. From this record I am able to infer that the U.S. and Canadian governments are not trustworthy sources of accurate information. Does this mean that I am part of a “conspiracy culture” because I claim that people well-positioned in those governments planned and plotted, oftentimes in secret, to rob and commit genocide against our nations and then did so? Perhaps it does given that I am part of a larger community (culture) of scholars working on the same focus.

Given that I claim to “know” this sordid record, based on several decades of research, does it make sense for me to go against my findings and consider the U.S. and Canadian governments a reliable source of truthful information about Covid-19 and “the pandemic” that was recently declared to be over?

Should I be willing to accept with a feeling of certainty the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines that the United States Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, and the pharmaceutical corporations prepared at ‘Warp Speed’? Should I factor in the estimated number of deaths and injuries from those Covid countermeasures?

Perhaps there’s another reason to use the term “conspiracy culture” to describe efforts by your “doppelganger,” or anyone else, for that matter, to investigate such matters. To gain a sense of the magnitude of such efforts, think of what it took for Ms. Wolf and other members of their cultural community of researchers to read a half a million pages “brought to you by Pfizer,” which were being kept secret, and only came to light because of a court order. And those half-a-million pages are just one significant piece of the deeply troubling puzzle.

To “conspire” is derived from the Latin term spirare, “to breath” and con, “together.” A conspiracy is accurately defined as “people coming together in secret, or in private, to devise an evil plot, purpose, or end.” A plot is a secret scheme or plan, the key being secrecy.

And where do we find those who have the greatest expertise when it comes to secrecy? Why, the “national security state,” of course. It has a hierarchy of secret clearances within the “national security apparatus.” And many of those secrets can be deadly serious.

The term “conspiracy culture” can be applied to the cultural community that investigates those who conduct their affairs behind the cover of secret security clearances. It’s a cultural community that has developed the intellectual training, discipline, and acumen needed to recognize and investigate what government does behind a veil of secrecy.

Instead of looking at it in this way, Noami, you seem to poke fun at the phrase “conspiracy culture.” You seem to use it to ridicule those who have been attempting to look behind the veil of authoritarian secrecy to see what the public-private partnership of domination has been up to.

Who is most bothered by the cultural community of researchers who are attempting to delve into matters that the “national security” community would prefer to keep a lid on? Why, the people in charge of national security interests, of course, including people in the three letter agencies, such as the one Dr. Anthony Fauci met with without a record of his visit being logged. There is a reason why “state secrets” are kept secret and thereby hidden from view. It’s to keep information away from us because “it’s none of our business.”

The people who safeguard those state-of-domination secrets would prefer that we simply accept the government as an ultimate and “trusted” authoritative source of information, like sheep that trust their shepherd to not feed them to the wolves.

When the mRNA “vaccines” were first released, I arranged for my father and me to speak to his doctor. When I asked him whether he was recommending the mRNA shots, the doctor replied, “Oh yes, 100 percent.” He explained that he and his family had gotten the Covid shots, and he was certainly making that recommendation to his patients.

“Well, we’re the kind of family that likes to look into things,” I replied, “and we’re wondering if you can provide us with the scientific basis upon which you are making your recommendation.” He chuckled a little, and said, “Well, I need you to understand that I’m a Kaiser Permanente Doctor and if it’s good enough for Kaiser Permanente, it's good enough for me.”

He was not giving us a scientific or a medical answer. He was giving us an answer based on an authority figure or an authoritative source. In other words, he was basically saying “I place my trust in the medical institution I work for, and that’s good enough for me.” We have all been expected to simply “trust” the government (“the domination”) which my decades of research has taught me is untrustworthy and has no problem at all promoting falsehoods.

The difficulty I am having with your brilliant book, Naomi, is the number of times you have simply assumed that some idea is true, without you applying your considerable research ability to ask insightful questions. I thought you would question, as the “Other Naomi” has, the authoritative sources that you have evidently turned to for your answers. It would have been great if your book contained the answers you had uncovered as a result of a deep inquiry into these matters.

The fact that I didn’t find this in your book made me wonder, “Where did Naomi Klein get the information she is accepting as true?” “On what scientific basis is she recommending mainstream authoritative Covid-19 Countermeasures?” [See: Sasha Latypova MEMO to Sen Ron Johnson, Evidence of Covid-19 Regulatory Failures, Criminal Wrongdoing and Attempts to Avoid Liability by Senior Executive Service Officials in Multiple Federal Agencies] I would suppose from some “authoritative source” such as the Canadian government or the U.S. government, or some agency such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

I find myself puzzled by a number of things you put have put forward in your book. You write about ideas that you have clearly accepted as true, such as wearing a mask to protect yourself and others from a virus. But you fail to provide your readers with the scientific basis upon which you are assuming that a mask is able to protect you or anyone else from a virus, especially children who do not have comorbidities, and who were never at risk from the virus to begin with.

You have clearly accepted as true the belief that being injected with the mRNA vaccine is an effective way to prevent transmission of “the virus,” even though, as Ms. Janine Smalls of Pfizer, admitted to the European Union, the mRNA “vaccines” were never tested to see whether they prevent transmission of the virus. Why? Because, said Smalls, “we had to really move at the speed of science.”

Are we to believe then, that “science” was “moving” at a meaningful speed by not testing scientifically whether the countermeasures that were being prepared at “warp speed” would be able to prevent the disease we are told needs to be prevented from spreading? How can not doing crucial scientific testing be sensibly called “the speed of science.” That’s incoherent.

Interestingly, you fail to provide your readers with the scientific basis upon which you reached whatever conclusion you arrived at about the vaccines. The same goes for social distancing and “contact tracing” to combat a pandemic. I didn’t find any scientific information in your book to support accepting those measures.

I have long admired your work, which is why I feel so disappointed by where you have ended up regarding the idea of “conspiracy culture,” mRNA vaccines, and other authoritarian measures that have been deployed by the U.S. government (the CDC, the FDA, the NIH) and the WHO.

Thank goodness, your doppelganger has had the ability to read the indicators of totalitarianism and sound the clarion call for us to all be on our guard and come together by finding points of agreement despite our differences.

Doppelganger was your opportunity to do a deep dive into the massive amount of information now available which supports “Other Naomi’s” point of view. You could have delved deeply into Operation Warp Speed, the dark side of the National Security State, the pharmaceutical industry, and so many other issues we need to fully investigate. Sadly, you declined to do so.