Conspiracy Theories: From Jack the Ripper to COVID-19

Watching dear old Christopher Frayling’s 1988 Timewatch documentary about Jack the Ripper (made to commemorate the centenary of the murders and available on Auntie’s iPlayer), my mind inevitably wondered back to the Coronavirus. Because the Ripper’s identity was just as much of a mystery to the Establishment 130 years ago as the nature of the Covid-19 disease is today. And just as both the MSM and “mainstream” politicians nowadays are finding themselves swept up in theories that even if they aren’t “conspiracy theories” are at least outlandish, so the Metropolitan Police of 1888 often had little more to go on than the evidence-free speculations of the general public.

The breakdown in relations between the police and the press of course has its own echoes in the rising number of horror stories in today’s ’papers and social media about unfortunate plods trying and failing to implement the Government’s social distancing and self-isolation regulations. The search for answers about the virus’s origins and spread has (albeit quite rightly!) turned attention to the secret activities of foreigners (i.e. Red China). And sooner or later, there is no doubt, there will be serious questions asked (even if they’re not in practice asked by particularly “serious” people) about why some social and ethnic groups have been affected by the virus worse that others.

And of course over both phenomena has hung the perennial and ultimate horror of death.

The only real contrast between the London of the 1880s and the London of the 2020s is that nowadays there is almost universal and unconditional respect for doctors and for men of “science” generally. But as the economic consequences of the Government’s response start to become apparent, and as some inevitably start to raise questions about the wisdom of implicitly trusting the judgement of latter-day quacks and wizards (because there is, it turns out, more to good government - and indeed preserving lives - than just “protecting the NHS), that too may very well change.

Wee Eck vs. the Strasserites?

The Murdoch Press are having a lovely time over Alex Salmond’s acquittal. One doesn’t doubt for a moment that they were expecting the bastard to go down. After all, if the #MeToo generation could get Harvey Weinstein, why not one of our own? And since Salmond is a Far-Left loon, an anti-English hatemonger and a Russian stooge, not to mention a grotesque oaf to boot, I’m quite sure The Times's editorial team were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of him, er, eating porridge for a while.

So what went wrong?

As usual, the answer is almost certainly Conspiracy. And then the real question is of course What sort?

Salmond is himself no slouch when it comes to coughing up conspiracy theories and pointed accusations. Back in 2015 he fingered both the BBC and the “metropolitan” press for their coverage of his referendum campaign to destroy the UK. (One can understand why a politician who hates Britain with every fibre of his being wouldn’t be too fond of the British Broadcasting Corporation - even though to all extents and purposes they’re really just British in name only.) This time though he’s going to go all in to get back at conspirators within his own party.

So, there’s going to be an inquiry, and he’s going to write a book. And his allies within the Party are rallying behind him. Nicola Sturgeon, who for most English people has always appeared to be little more than the Janette Tough (aka “Wee Jimmy Krankie”) to Salmond’s Ian, has declined to comment, but one can imagine that whether she wants to or not she’ll end up being cast on the side of the gruesome tartan fembots who, for reasons so far known only to themselves, have lined up (and apparently colluded with each other in doing so) to denounce Wee Eck for his wicked ways.

The internal politics of the SNP are of course impenetrable to outsiders, not to mention quite irrelevant to the vast majority of British subjects. Life’s too short to go into them in any depth. Suffice it then to refer to Sayre’s Law: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.” And I suppose one should add that when the motive is primarily ideological, sectarian or nationalistic (and the SNP is all three) the struggle is only going to be even more vicious. (My own feeling is that this is indeed a battle between the Scots Nazis’ “woke” and “nationalist” wings. Basically they’re Scotland’s Strasserites and Hitlerites du jour, and if not an actual Night of the Long Knives then at least some sort of reckoning is definitely on its way.)

Not to be out done, of course, The Times have come up with their own conspiracy theory, which as ever involves none other than dear old Vladimir Putin. (Who else?) Because not content with gassing civilians in Syria, rigging the US presidential elections and threatening the peace and security of western Europe, he’s now apparently taken time out to try and destroy the Scottish National Party. ‘Analysts say that President Putin’s regime has strategic reasons to put pro-EU and pro-Nato Scottish nationalists in its sights.’ What-ever!

For what it’s worth, one can easily imagine the Far Left of the Far Left of Scots nationalism objecting to Wee Eck’s having a chat-show on Russian telly. And the objection would be essentially the same as their objection to Julian Assange after he helped get Trump elected. “Putin is nath-ty. Putin is Hitler. Putin betrayed the Revolution by being nationalistic. Orange Man Bad! Russia Evil! Alex Salmond Too Sexy!”

Well, it’s something to think about. With luck it will at least be entertaining, at least once we’re all allowed out of our hovels again and back into the so-called “real” world.

The St Gallen Mafia

No, sorry, I just don't believe in the "St Gallen Mafia" conspiracy theory. They failed to get Martini elected in 2005, when Martini himself told them to support Ratzinger in order to stop Bergoglio. Austen Ivereigh of course claims that they then had a change of heart, and that the three of them who were left (three out of 115!) conspired to get Bergoglio elected in 2013. But how likely is this really?

Indeed is there any real evidence for this outside of the tittle-tattle collected by Ivereigh and Bergoglio's other liberal boomer boosters? Alas, not really! Ivereigh claimed in the first edition of his silly book that just before the 2013 conclave the three of them got Bergoglio's consent to campaign for him, but he was then forced to retract this allegation for the second edition. And is there any real reason even to think it, given that no one (apart from the St Gallen group, supposedly!) even thought of Bergoglio as a "liberal" before he became Pope? Certainly he was not considered liberal by his fellow Jesuits in Argentina, with whom he was deeply unpopular. At a time when "liberation theology" was booming in South America, Bergoglio was seen as something of a "conservative" JPII sycophant.

And for what it's worth I don't believe in the "British coup" theory either. (Again, would we really do such a thing? Did some just think it would be funny to have an Argie as Pope? "Haw-haw! That'll annoy The Sun.") On the face of it, yes, one can easily imagine Pope Bergoglio being elected as Dave and Nick's puppet as much as Obama's. After all, Britain is at best Washington's poodle and at worst Mini-Me to Uncle Sam's Dr Evil, so there's a certain thematic logic to it. In one sense the ultimate success of the "liberal" proddy British Establishment would be to have a Pope elected who was a liberal protestant in all but name.

And yet! And yet! For one thing, once again, the source! This is Ma Pepinster, the elderly schoolgirl who for no readily apparent reason is still writing for Britain's most oleaginously pro-Establishment "Catholic" periodical. And secondly, once again... just think about it. These are the same British Establishment lickspittles who are diehards for the EU on the grounds that internationally Britain is now a post-imperial pipsqueak. They're the sorts of Catholics who would despise the Commonwealth of Nations as an embarrassing relic of a bygone age (even though in practice they would approve of much that it does). Surely the idea that our own James Bond helped to get Pope Francis elected is one sycophantic conspiracy fantasy too far even for them?

In fact easily the best summing up of the "political" situation in the Church I've read in some time comes courtesy of someone called Shane Schaetzel on his blog here. The Catholic Church is "split" (although not technically, and for crude financial reasons it probably isn't going to be any time soon either) between American neocons and German liberals. The former are trying to keep the JPII "conservative" vision of Vatican II alive. The latter are basically in hoc to the German secular state thanks to its "church tax". What's more, they don't really believe in anything anyway and they don't see why anyone else should either. (And more to the point they don't want them to!) The way the whole "Pope Francis" phenomenon fits into it is so straightforward there just isn't space for conspiracy theories about Jesuits, conspiracy theories about the St Gallen mafia, conspiracy theories about the British Embassy in Rome, or even conspiracy theories about Communists, Freemasons and Jews, etc.

Because the simple truth is that when Ratzinger resigned the papacy he was seen as being old and weak. He'd wanted it for himself, for his vision, for his "reform of the Reform" and his "hermeneutic of continuity". And he'd failed. The Cardinals wanted another JPII. The American neocons at any rate remembered "their" Pope as a tough guy who used to stand up to one sort of son-of-a-bitch (i.e. the "atheistic" Commies) and pal around with the other sort (i.e. Galtieri*, Tudjman, Saddam, etc.). They wanted a strong man, they thought Bergoglio would be it, and even if Ratzinger wasn't seen as an old, weak has-been (and I suspect he was), the remorseless logic of the conclave was simply that Bergoglio was next in line. Besides, he was Sodano's golden boy, Sodano had been Galtieri's golden boy, and so as far as JPII's groupies were concerned Bergoglio could do no wrong. (See George Weigel, especially!) And so once again it was the Yanks wot won it - led of course by American Establishment Cardinal par excellence (see here and here) the Archbishop of New York (where else?) Cardinal Dolan.

Buyer's remorse has of course since set in fast, but the simple and obvious truth remains. When future church historians finally start to write up the fate of the glorious new Americanised Catholic Church that emerged after Vatican II, the answer will simply be that they did it to themselves.

*We now know exactly whose side he was on.