Home Blog Page 7

Conspiracy theorists cry betrayal at Trump’s selective approach to immigration

Dave Hahn
-
0
Conspiracy theorists cry betrayal at Trump’s selective approach to immigration

In March of last year, I wrote an article in which I lamented that David Icke was right. It’s been almost a year, and that headline – indeed the very idea of writing that down and then attaching my name to it  – was difficult. However, skepticism means facing down uncomfortable truths, and admitting things that we may not want to admit but the evidence points us there. I had to admit that Icke had made a good point.

I’ll explain. It’s not that Icke is right about anything in his conspiratorial worldview. However, Icke was right to lambaste the people in what he called the “Mainstream Alternative Media” (MAM). This is the group that includes, according to him: Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and Jordan Peterson. They have each built a public persona as someone who is “fighting the system,” “being a rebel,” and looking out for the common person. While the people within the group have had their share of in-fighting over the years, they’ve always been fighting about the little details. Carlson, for example, hadn’t partook in alien conspiracy theories for most of his career, while Alex Jones believes that alien invasions are happening and that he’s fighting the actual Christian Devil. But these are minor differences, ignoring those, they’ve all been on the same side. That is, until recently, when Icke noticed that this group of supposed rebels have begun worshipping at the altar of Elon Musk.

Icke’s position is that this is absurd. While all of them have worldviews based on fictional sources, a poor understanding of economics, and thinly veiled white nationalism; they apparently fail to recognise a true enemy when they see it. Musk, Icke explained, had not done anything to prove his worth, other than buying Twitter and reinstating their previously banned accounts. He’s clearly part of “the system.” Icke reasons, in an incredible broken clock moment, that if the conspiracy worldview was true, someone like Musk would not be allowed to succeed. His purchase of the platform would not have been allowed to go through. Further, Icke says Musk is exactly the type of person that the whole lot of them have been warning the world about: an obscenely rich technocrat that literally has a business which puts computer chips in people’s brains. Every caricature that they developed about someone like Bill Gates actually applies to Elon Musk. Icke isn’t actually correct, because there is no “they.” There are no lizard-aliens, Illuminati, Globalists, or International Jewish Cabal. There are only two options: either Icke and the entire Mainstream Alternative Media are wrong, or Musk is a tool of the system.

That was back in March. Since then, Musk spent his time cozying up to then-candidate Trump, and probably tipping some votes in his direction. Musk has ingrained himself into the new administration, and in doing so he’s been attempting to influence policy. His policy decisions have created a greater schism in the conspiracy theory world, and it has been revealed to the true believers that they have been duped.

The breaking point came over the issue of H1-B Visas. Under US immigration law, an H1-B Visa is a specialty Visa that allows an individual to come to the United States to work in a particular field. The person is considered a “non-immigrant worker.” Under the law, this means that the person has no intention of becoming a citizen and is only in the US for professional reasons. After a period of three years (with a possible extension to six) they are supposed to return to their country of origin. I will not speculate on the intention of the programme, only to say that my country’s immigration system needs some kind of overhaul, because the H1-B Visa programme can lead to abuse.

For example, let’s say that you own a social media company. You could extend an offer to citizens in a country with a lower economic system, so that they come to the US and work. You can pay them lower wages than citizen workers, and then after the three years are up, the workers can be sent back home. In the late 18th and 19th century we called a programme like this “indentured servitude.” Poor Irish people, for example, fleeing the extreme poverty of their own country, would enthral themselves to wealthier individuals to gain passage to the United States. After a period, that individual would be “released”.

However, the rift is not actually over the unfairness of this for those workers. The rift is in the Trump/Musk endorsement of the H1-B programme in general. The conspiratorial side, the true believers, saw this as a stark betrayal of an important reason that they supported Trump to begin with: he is supposed to protect their border. He spent the entire campaign, and one disaster of a debate (which ultimately didn’t matter), spewing anti-immigrant conspiracy theories. Both of his campaigns for president have been based on protecting the United States from the immigrant hordes, and now he’s telling the public that he’s in support of bringing people into the United States to work.

To be clear: I’m not endorsing either side of this fight. For me it’s clearly an “Alien versus Predator” situation, where I’m just sitting back and watching the carnage.

Trump and Musk’s endorsement of the visa programme angered true believers like Laura Loomer. Loomer is a name familiar to those of us who follow conspiracy theorists, but also to those who follow political campaigns as she was a guest and advisor to then-candidate Trump over the summer. Loomer aired her grievances on social media, alongside other high profile conspiracy theorists like Steve Bannon and InfoWars second chair Owen Schroyer.

This could have just been a minor policy disagreement. During the first Trump presidency, conservative pundits criticised the president for not being strong enough on the immigration issue, but they were never overly hostile about it. However, the problem escalated, because suddenly the critics of Trump’s position began losing their check marks on Musk’s platform, and accounts were suspended.

The conclusion that people like Loomer and Schroyer reached was that they were being censored by the “free-speech absolutist”. Musk, it should be noted, has never been a free-speech absolutist. The first thing he did after taking over Twitter was banning an account which tracked his private jet. Then he labelled news agencies that he didn’t agree with as “government propaganda.”

The explanation for Loomer’s account was that other platforms have blocked her, and the Twitter algorithm automatically blocks accounts. That is a very weak and obviously incorrect statement. If it were true, people like Alex Jones, Owen Schroyer, and Laura Loomer would never have been reinstated. I can’t say with definitive proof that Musk banned their accounts, but I can say that the situation surely points in that direction.

The schism shows us the difference between the believers and the opportunists. In the conspiracy world, immigrants are nothing more than tools brought in to cause terrorism, turn the kids gay, and vote Democrat. People like Alex Jones have been screaming this for the entirety of the Obama and Biden administrations; people like them are a major reason that immigration is even an issue in the presidential elections. It’s not that this should be a deal-breaker for these people, it should be the deal-breaker. The fight likely explains the horrid immigration policies that are going forward now in the United States. They were bad during the first Trump administration, but there is a new vigour by which people not deemed “real Americans” are being hounded, and those with questionable citizenship are being arrested and forcibly exiled. My assumption is that this fight is likely a contributing factor to Musk’s new habit of offering Nazi salutes (twice at the Presidential Inauguration) and endorsing the extremist positions of the German AFD Party.

Don’t Be A Dick: revisiting Phil Plait’s 2010 advice to skeptics

Sean Slater
-
0
Don’t Be A Dick: revisiting Phil Plait’s 2010 advice to skeptics

Here at Edinburgh Skeptics, our previous Chair, Ben Makin, coined our pithy motto: Respect People, Challenge Ideas. We think it encapsulates the standards we believe we should aspire to. And, though we don’t always live up to it in every interaction, we are always conscious of it when talking with believers in pseudoscience, either in person or online.

A few similar attempts have been made over the years to focus on similar concise phrases. The LBC radio host James O’Brien created Contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned for instance, about the Brexit campaigners, which, although it has the benefit of being alliterative, has the disadvantage of being gender specific. Hey, women can con people too!

But none sparked the furore within skepticism that the astronomer Dr Phil Plait ignited with his talk at 2010’s The Amaz!ng Meeting where he implored to his audience: “Don’t be a dick!”.

Phil Plait, also known as “The Bad Astronomer,” is an American astronomer, skeptic, and science communicator. He has made significant contributions both in his field and in public science education, via media and podcasting, and on his Bad Astronomy blog. He has authored three popular science books: Bad Astronomy, Death from the Skies, and Under Alien Skies. These works demystify complex astronomical concepts for the general public. He has also appeared in several science documentaries on The Discovery Channel and has been a regular on skeptical podcasts such as A Skeptics Guide to the Universe as well as hosting his own Crash Course in Astronomy series on You Tube.

For those of you who are too young to be aware (or too old to remember), The Amaz!ng Meeting (abbreviated to TAM) was a precursor to the much-loved QEDcon. It was held in Las Vegas, with a brief pair of London events. In 2010, Plait was invited to give a presentation at the Vegas meeting and his speech focused on what he felt was an increasing problem in organised skeptics’ interactions: specifically, people acting in an obnoxious and dismissive way to others, especially to believers in pseudoscientific ideas.

Plait thought the tone of skeptical outreach had deteriorated substantially. He asked attendees whether they had previously believed in things like bigfoot, UFOs, and alt-med, and if so, what had caused them to change their mind? Was it people getting in their face, mocking them and using names like idiots, the r-word, or other ableist slurs?

He put forth a rhetorical question: how do we, as skeptics, convince people that they are not thinking clearly, when they are not thinking clearly?

Using studies to reinforce his ideas, Plait talked about how engaging confrontationally with believers can often lead to them double down in their errant beliefs. It is hard to get someone to change their mind, especially with a message that can be discomforting for many people, often requiring huge shifts in how they view the world. Humans tend to identify profoundly with their beliefs, be they political, religious or worldview-based, and will react defensively if they feel these are coming under attack.

Readers will likely agree that science and an understanding of reality can be profound, glorious or even magical (in the sense of awesomeness), but not everyone feels this way. Skepticism is, by its very definition, seen as negative. I’m sure many of you will have had the experience of family or work colleagues talking about a TV show they watched on UFOs, or announcing they saw a reiki practitioner for their leg pain and it really helped, and then disparaging you when you push back with some skeptical facts. No matter how gently and well-meaning you think you’ve done so.

Plait asks an important question: what is the goal of the skeptical movement? Is it to counteract pseudoscience specifically, and bad thinking in general? Or are we just a social group for freaks and geeks and simples – to borrow a line from a song – where we can rail at the stupidity in the world? If our goal is to help people walk away from the irrationality that causes harm to them and wider society, then we need to be conscious of how we do that.

One point of later criticism of the talk was that he did not give any specific examples, and that left the door open for detractors – and there were many – to dismiss this accusation of bad behaviour, because Plait was talking in generalities without evidence. Especially, as he accused “some atheists and skeptics” of hubris and of being dickish to others. Some, who wondered if they were the ones who had been dickish and hubristic and therefore the ones being attacked, pushed back. But as Plait himself later remarked:

“I was thinking fairly generically when I wrote the talk, and though I did have some specific examples of dickery in mind, the talk itself was not aimed at any individual person”.

There is no doubt that the skeptical movement had changed during the noughties. Previously, while dominated by the JREF, CSI (formerly CSICOP) and magazines like Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic in the USA, and The Skeptic in the UK, the focus had been principally on pseudoscience and the paranormal – topics like UFOs, alien mysteries, astrology, cryptozoology, ghosts and the supernatural. The great and the good of those driving the focus were largely from either academia or from the performing arts, especially the world of magic. There is an argument that, as successful as the movement had been thus far, there was often too much focus on things that were usually seen as harmless eccentricities by much of the public.

However, in the post-9/11 era, there was a greater interest in, and identification with, the increasingly organised atheist lobby – the so-called New Atheists. This led to a welcome influx of younger and less academically based people into the mix. The subsequent explosion of blogs, podcasts, videos on social media meant that there was a wider audience – and range of activists – prepared to challenge beliefs that had until then been much more socially accepted in wider society. The increasing success of the movement meant that some people were now applying the tools of skepticism to more entrenched ideas, especially ones that had held unwarranted, or even sometimes damaging, power over them as individuals in the past.

Anger, especially deriving from a sense of injustice, can be an immense driver, and understandable in many circumstances, but Plait saw a change in the community where younger, more enthusiastic skeptics were being deliberately and ruthlessly provocative to people who did not agree with them, regardless of the subject matter and regardless of who they were talking to. They were bringing anger where it was arguably not warranted, and in doing so they were causing reputational damage to the movement, which too often was counterproductive to the goal of changing people’s minds.

There was much pushback to Plait’s talk from within the skeptical/atheist movement, ranging from ‘He’s right, but…’, to calling him an ‘accommodationist’ and an apologist for dangerous beliefs. He was accused of pandering to the old guard, and of not understanding the trauma of people trapped in religion, especially fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, and therefore demanding that others surrender to the extremists.

This debate within skeptical circles has arguably only become more strident and entrenched with time. There is no doubt that as the movement diverted from its more traditional focus, political differences came much more to the fore. A movement that had been predominately male for a long time was starting to grapple with the importance of diversity, and activists – of all genders – sought to challenge the status quo. Others were uncomfortable with this and felt that skepticism and atheism should focus simply on the task at hand, and ignore all the Social Justice Warriors.

This polarisation continues even now. We’ve had pushback when Edinburgh Skeptics has announced that we are inclusive, that we support transgender rights, or that we support Pride, or ensure our speaker lists are largely gender equal; that we are progressive and happy to support people.

There are many outliers and you don’t need me to go full Godwin’s to show you these, but most people – especially those not actively involved in hoodwinking the public – hold ideas for reasons they themselves don’t fully understand and it is unlikely their mind will be changed by calling them morons or idiots. This is simply what Plait was referring to.

There is no doubt that the current political landscape demands that we fight robustly against misinformation and those who want to restrict the rights of so many others, but rather than simply making ourselves feel good about how right we are, if we want to be effective, compassionate skeptics, we need to think about how we communicate and heed Phil Plait’s advice. Don’t be a dick.

Project Blue Beam is finally happening… as long as you cherry pick very carefully

Nick Garratt
-
0
Project Blue Beam is finally happening… as long as you cherry pick very carefully

You may have heard the buzz about the unknown aircraft flying around over New Jersey – if you’re not aware, you can read my previous article for The Skeptic, where I ‘drone’ on about it. It seemed to be mostly based on your usual run-of-the-mill misidentified planes or satellites, but it wouldn’t be an internet frenzy without conspiracy subreddits and Facebook pages proposing outlandish theories. One notion being pushed by the loudest proponents, with the shiniest of tinfoil hats – such as Rosanne Barr and Alex Jones – is that we are seeing the implementation of “Project Blue Beam”.

If you haven’t come across Project Blue Beam before, it was a supposed plan first laid out by a Canadian conspiracy theorist called Serge Monast. In 1994, a transcript was published of a talk he had given several times, titled Project Blue Beam (NASA). Monast claimed that he had seen documents of a secret plan by the New World Order, under the guise of NASA, to end all religions and topple nation states, bringing forth the new government that would rule the entire world.

This plan was initially going to happen in 1983 – supposedly the start of the Age of Aquarius (there is no consensus on when the Age of Aquarius started/will start, but I have seen nothing to suggest it was 1983). Something had happened to delay that date (Monast doesn’t know what) and so it had been pushed back to the mid-90’s. Alas, when the new date came around… nothing happened.

Monast died mysteriously soon after the release of his publication, so could not comment on the reason for this second delay. And by “mysterious” and “soon” I mean he had a heart attack two years after he’d published the transcript of the talk he’d been giving for several years, and continued to give in his remaining time.

But with the arrival of these lights over New Jersey, Project Blue Beam is back in the hearts and minds of ufologists, religious zealots, and QAnoners once again. It’s finally happening, just as the plan suggested… right?

There are apparently four steps to Project Blue Beam:

1.    The Breakdown Of Archaeological Knowledge

Step one is a nice easy one to lead us in: stage fake earthquakes, which will uncover planted “discoveries” that will undermine all the well-known evidence of the archaeological record that proves Christianity to be true.

How will these fake earthquakes be achieved? It’s unclear. Maybe some of the weather weapons Joe Biden was said to be using to cause storms and hurricanes in the US during hurricane season have an earthquake setting.

It is also unclear as to how the false evidence gets planted. Whether someone sneaks in to drop a bunch of bones and/or pottery, then tells archaeologists to go take a look; or maybe the archaeologists are all in on it – that’d explain why 2024 Ockham Award Winner, Flint Dibble, is so distrusted by the defender of truth, Joe Rogan…

You may have also been wondering what the existing scientific evidence is that archaeologists have been collecting that proves the truth of Christianity. I certainly was. While some biblical scholars have claimed that certain archaeological finds point to the veracity of the stories about Jesus, no hard evidence has ever been located.

Photo of the slopes of Mount Ararat in Turkey with a site that some claim to be the site of Noah's Ark
The supposed site of Noah’s Ark near Mount Ararat, Turkey. By Mfikretyilmaz, via Wikimedia Commons CC BY 3.0

2.    The Drone Show!

This is the part that has excited the conspiracy theorists, as Monast talked about light shows in the sky. But, if we take a look at his actual words, it doesn’t actually match up:

“The second step deals with the gigantic space show with three-dimensional optical holograms and sounds, laser projections of multiple holographic images to different parts of the world, each receiving different images according to predominating regional/national religious faith. This new god’s image will be talking in all languages.”

The stories online have all focused around the USA, primarily New Jersey; have only referred to lights in the sky, rather than gigantic 3D images; none of the lights indicated anything religious; and nobody heard anything spoken. The shaky footage from mobile phones doesn’t demonstrate Serge’s step two, at all! There are only two correlating words: “light” and “sky” – that’s the whole shebang.

3.    Telepathic Talk From Fake God

For good measure we will finish the other steps. Step three involves satellites beaming messages directly in to the heads of every human being on Earth, spoken in the native language of every single individual on Earth (this is done with super-smart computers on those satellites – now we’d probably claim AI and super-computers, but Serge hadn’t heard of those things in 1994).

What these messages are exactly is not provided, though Monast points to fear being used to control the masses and, in the published version of the speech, the transcriber interrupts at the shift between steps two and three to provide a handful of quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a debunked piece of antisemitic propaganda that was claimed to be written by a cabal of evil Jewish men planning to take over the world).

4.    The Night Of The Thousand Stars

Our final step involves a night where humanity collectively loses its mind as a result of a faked alien invasion (perhaps this is the part that Rosanne and her ilk are warning about, though starting with step four seems a bold strategy). In addition to the fake alien invasion, we also have a fake rapture to make Christians believe they are being taken to Heaven. Step 4c is that electrical devices with microchips inside them will go crazy, and satanic ghosts will drive people to a purge-like night of death and disorder. Why Serge put your smart fridge spoiling your milk alongside demonic spirits bringing about the end times, I can’t say, but he did!

And there we have it: Project Blue Beam being enacted before our very eyes! If you look at it just the right way. And by right way, I mean you only read the words “lights” and “sky”, and ignore everything that clearly isn’t actually happening.

Alice Guo, the local Philippines town mayor accused of being a Chinese spy

Kirk Lance Poca Cuizon
-
0
Alice Guo, the local Philippines town mayor accused of being a Chinese spy

A sleek black McLaren sits in the driveway, its glossy finish gleaming in the tropical sun. Nearby, a helicopter rests on a private landing pad, its blades perfectly still, waiting for its next flight. All of this nestled in a quiet provincial town. But this isn’t the holiday home of a billionaire escaping city life – it’s the estate of the town mayor. With this kind of luxury, people reasoned, she has to be guilty of something… right?

Alice Guo, mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, has become the face of a scandal that has captivated the Philippines. For months, she has been accused not only of unexplained wealth and ties to Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) but also of something far more sinister: being a Chinese spy. For many Filipinos, this isn’t just a theory – it’s a conclusion they’ve already drawn.

The belief that Guo is a spy has spread like wildfire, dominating headlines, Senate hearings, and social media feeds. In a country increasingly wary of Chinese influence, her case feels like a validation of people’s deepest fears about foreign interference, and betrayal at the highest levels of power. But why are so many people convinced of her guilt? And how did this narrative take hold so completely, even in the absence of concrete evidence?

Guo’s story isn’t just about her – it’s about us. High-profile scandals like this one don’t just reflect the actions of the accused. They reveal the biases, media narratives, and anxieties that shape how we interpret events.

A scandal that captured a nation

A woman, Alice Guo (mayor of a small Philippines town), sits in a green chair looking to her right, seeming unimpressed. She has straight, shoulder-length dark brown hair and is wearing square-ish framed glasses and a zip-up hoodie
Guo during the Senate hearing on her alleged POGO ties in September 2024 (public domain)

Alice Guo’s rise to infamy began with a Senate inquiry into Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). These Chinese-run online gambling businesses, which cater to international clients, have long been controversial in the Philippines. They are associated with illegal activities, including tax evasion, money laundering, and human trafficking, and are widely viewed as symbols of Chinese economic encroachment in the country.

Guo’s name surfaced during the inquiry because several POGO operations were based in Bamban, Tarlac, where she served as mayor. While her exact involvement with these businesses remains unclear, her connection to the jurisdiction where they operated quickly drew scrutiny. The investigation into POGOs soon expanded to questions about Guo’s personal wealth. Reports revealed that she owned a McLaren sports car and a helicopter – luxuries rarely associated with a mayor of a quiet, agricultural town where many residents live modestly. Guo admitted to owning the helicopter, which she claimed had been sold to a British company, but denied owning the luxury car, explaining it was loaned to her for a car show.

From there, the allegations snowballed. Guo faced accusations of falsifying documents to obscure her financial dealings and, more sensationally, of being a Chinese spy working to infiltrate Philippine politics. While the espionage claims lacked concrete evidence, they tapped into growing anxieties about Chinese influence in the region. For years, tensions between the Philippines and China have simmered over territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea, where China’s aggressive expansionism – including constructing artificial islands and claiming vast swathes of Philippine-owned waters – has drawn widespread condemnation.

The hearings took a dramatic turn when Senator Risa Hontiveros, who initially focused on Guo’s ties to POGOs, pivoted to the espionage allegations. “I’m not yet prepared to conclude that she is not involved, or that the people associated with her are not involved in espionage”, Hontiveros stated during a Senate session, amplifying the narrative of Guo as a potential Chinese agent. Her comments, combined with sharp questioning, leveraged public anxieties about foreign interference. Clips of Hontiveros grilling Guo on her alleged ties to Chinese intelligence went viral on social media, fuelling debates and cementing Guo’s image as a central figure in the nation’s growing concerns over corruption and sovereignty.

Philippines senator, Risa Hontiveros, speaks into a microphone with a thermos and water bottle in front of her. She has shoulder length, straight, dark brown hair with a side parting and is wearing colourless see-through framed glasses, red lipstick and a check shirt/dress with matching jacket
Risa Hontiveros during the Senate investigation of Alice Guo (public domain)

These developments resonated with a public already wary of Chinese influence. The combination of Guo’s connection to POGOs, her unexplained wealth, and the spy allegations turned her into a lightning rod for frustrations over sovereignty and corruption. Many Filipinos saw her case as emblematic of larger fears about foreign interference and economic exploitation, particularly in light of ongoing tensions with China.

But why did the narrative of Guo as a spy take hold so quickly, even in the absence of concrete evidence? The answer lies not just in Guo’s actions but in the broader social and political environment that shapes public opinion in the Philippines.

Local perceptions of the scandal

For university students Zak and Ellysse, the Alice Guo scandal seemed to come from all directions. It wasn’t just in the news, it was in the air they breathed, the conversations they overheard, and even the public spaces they navigated.

Even before the Alice Guo story broke, fears of China infringing on the Philippines’ sovereignty and infiltrating society were already deeply ingrained. “There were billboards around the metro about the West Philippine Sea being ours”, Zak recalled, describing how the message of standing firm against Chinese encroachment was a regular part of his environment. Discussions on campus were equally charged. Professors and peers alike were vocal about the possibility of sleeper agents infiltrating society. “We don’t know where they are. We don’t know who they are. But there are some agents already in our campus” Zak remembered being told, a warning that added urgency to the unfolding scandal.

This backdrop of fear and suspicion gave the Alice Guo story immediate momentum. The narrative seemed to validate existing anxieties about foreign interference, which had been simmering for years. When news of Guo’s unexplained wealth, ties to POGOs, and alleged espionage surfaced, it felt like a natural extension of those fears. “Everyone was talking about it.” Zak said, recalling how quickly the story took hold. “It was inescapable.”

Ellysse encountered the story through television news and through everyday conversations with people. “Discovering this actually was just, like, everyone was really talking about it.” she recalled. The clips of Guo’s luxurious lifestyle only seemed to confirm her worst fears about corruption and excess in politics. “I found it outrageous that she could have all that and is just a mayor?” she said.

Social media, too, was flooded with posts dissecting Senate hearings and amplifying soundbites, while everyday conversations wove Guo into broader narratives about sovereignty, corruption, and betrayal. Zak observed how pervasive the discussions became, even among people who rarely engaged with politics. “You’d see people quoting the Senate hearings on the street”, Ellysse added. “It became this phenomenon where even those who never cared about politics before were suddenly engaged.”

The Alice Guo scandal wasn’t just another headline – it was seen a puzzle whose pieces, once laid out, seemed to perfectly fit the narrative that Guo was a spy. For Ellysse, it felt both logical and inevitable. “The spy thing, though, came”, she recalled. “I feel like I was talking about it with my family. It didn’t go over the grapevine or whatever.” What began as a passing thought – almost a joke – started to grow in significance. “It’s just a joke that she’s a spy. Because she’s a spy”, she said with a laugh, before explaining how the narrative began to settle into place. “The more you kind of sit there with the thought, the more you’re like, what if she really is?”

From there, the narrative felt unstoppable. Every new detail that emerged seemed to confirm the theory. There were supposed inconsistencies with Guo’s birth certificate. She was even said to struggle with the local language. “It’s like she was taught to speak it”, Ellysse said about Guo’s fluency. “And it all was making sense under the spy narrative.”

But why did this narrative feel so right to Ellysse? Part of it was psychological. “When you’re given mysterious variables, you kind of want to make sense of it”, she said. “So if you have a narrative that kind of semi-fits the data, you just immediately accept it for what it is because it fits in your brain.” The spy narrative didn’t just fit the data – it aligned with a broader worldview she already held. “I had a precondition already, thinking that there are a lot of Chinese soft influences in Filipino governance”, she explained, “I’ve read so many political articles about China’s soft power over the Philippines, spreading misinformation, swaying political decisions – it’s too common. It’s a known fact to me. I feel like some people don’t know that.”

Still, Ellysse admitted that media played an overwhelming role in shaping her stance. “I’d have to say that the media played, like, a hundred percent influence over my decision”, she acknowledged. “I don’t think I came up with a hypothesis myself and affirmed it through media. I think media gave me the hypothesis, and I just accepted it for what it was.”

The sheer ubiquity of the story also contributed to its impact. “The issue was so big”, she said, “You’ve got people who’ve never even seen a Senate hearing in their life quoting it on the street daily.” From television to social media to conversations with friends and family, the narrative became unavoidable. “It was everywhere”, she emphasised. “The pieces all made sense to me, and when something feels that right, it’s hard not to believe it.”

When the pieces don’t add up

Zak, too, encountered the story amid the backdrop of growing tension between the Philippines and China. But for Zak, the pieces didn’t quite fit. “If the Chinese really wanted their agent to be in the Philippines, they would have made it more subtle.” Zak said. To him, Guo’s opulence – the McLaren, the helicopter, the high-profile political career – felt like the opposite of what a covert operative would have. “Her life is way too flashy. It’s not deep-state enough”, he explained, “I’m open to the idea of her being a criminal, but as for being a spy? That doesn’t add up to me.”

Still, skepticism didn’t come easily. “When something is perceived as evil, it’s hard for me to go out of my way to defend it.” Zak admitted. Speaking up against a widely accepted narrative felt uncomfortable, even risky. “You don’t want to be the person standing up for someone everyone else has already judged guilty”, he said. Even as he questioned the narrative, he found it difficult to fully push back.

Zak wasn’t surprised that the spy story resonated, however. Allegations about her falsified birth certificate and foreign roots created a narrative that felt both plausible and timely: “When you link a Chinese national who has become mayor to offshore gambling tied to Chinese entities, it’s easy for people to connect those dots”, Zak explained.

But Zak also worried about what happens when people jump to conclusions without evidence. “Assumption can get people killed.” he said, pointing to the harm caused by unchecked narratives. Reflecting on Guo’s case, he drew a comparison to Senator Leila de Lima, who was accused of corruption and drug links, only for later evidence to call those allegations into question. “I’m reminded of how quick people were to condemn her”, Zak said. For him, the danger wasn’t just in believing Guo’s guilt – it was in how easily public opinion could ruin a person before the full truth emerged.

How rumours take hold

Joao Atienza, a former Media and Information Literacy teacher, told me that the Alice Guo scandal is a textbook example of how narratives take root and flourish. When a narrative aligns with deeply held worldviews – such as fears of Chinese influence in the Philippines – it often takes on a life of its own, regardless of the evidence.

“Headlines are horrible for how they polarise people”, he explained. “They tend to oversimplify, misinform, or amplify sensational angles. It could be something like ‘Risa Hontiveros asks Alice Guo if she’s a spy.’ And then what eventually people will take from that that she is a spy.” According to Joao, the lack of critical digging by the media, combined with its reliance on Senate hearings, allowed the spy narrative to dominate, filling in the gaps for a public already inclined to distrust Chinese nationals.

On top of that, for many Filipinos, the backdrop of tensions over the West Philippine Sea and fears of Chinese soft power provided fertile ground for Guo’s story to be seen as part of a larger pattern. “It’s convenient timing”, he noted, “and when you add the fact that she’s a Chinese national, everyone’s like, ‘Oh, yeah, that’s definitely a spy.’”

What makes these narratives even harder to challenge, is the role of social media algorithms in amplifying outrage and sensationalism. “The stuff that is the most anger-inducing are the things that are shared”, Joao told me. Social media platforms reward engagement through the worst and most polarising takes, and the repetition of these ideas – whether true or not – eventually legitimises them. “If enough people say it, it becomes what people perceive as reality”, he said.

But what happens when someone’s worldview is challenged? Joao argued that this is one of the hardest things to overcome. “People don’t like being told that they’re wrong”, he said. “It’s not just about pride – it’s about the discomfort of questioning beliefs that form the foundation of how we see the world. It’s like a house of cards. If one thing topples, everything feels unstable.”

How can we truly challenge preconceptions, then? “People don’t engage with ideas; people engage with people”, he told me, “If you really want to change somebody’s mind, you don’t straight up tell them they’re wrong with facts and logic. You make sure they feel like a person, and you make sure they feel like you’re a person.” For Joao, skepticism isn’t about confrontation but about reflection – putting oneself in someone else’s shoes and examining how their background and experiences shape their views.

Ultimately, for Joao, the Guo case isn’t just about corruption or espionage – it’s about what it reveals about society. “We’re uncomfortable living in shades of grey”, he said. “We feel like there should be a right answer but, sometimes, the truth is we don’t know.”

The story of Alice Guo is, in many ways, more about us than it is about her. Zak’s skepticism, Ellysse’s conviction, and Joao’s reasoning all illustrate that the narratives we believe are shaped not just by facts, but by the stories we want – or need – to make sense of the world.

And perhaps the most important takeaway from this scandal isn’t about Alice Guo’s guilt or innocence. It’s about how easily we fill in the blanks when given just enough information to confirm our fears. In a world of fast-moving headlines and instant opinions, sometimes the hardest – and most radical – thing to do is to admit: we don’t know.

Contorium: how a conspiracy narrative embraced a Turkish parody crystal

Serdar Basegmez
-
0
Contorium: how a conspiracy narrative embraced a Turkish parody crystal

In 2007, Can Güney Kuseyri posted a short piece of satire about a fake element on Ekşisözlük, Turkey’s popular social media platform once described by Zeynep Tüfekçi as “Wikipedia, a social network, and Reddit rolled into one.” His inspiration came from another joke, the “feomidium” element, which had been “invented” by a journalist a year before and later adopted into the Islamist Saadet Party’s election chatter.

These priceless, game-changing materials – or, as one Ekşisözlük user dubbed them, “SPAM Metals” – were frequently mentioned in email forwards and the early days of social media. Most claims were about miraculous features, from energy to military applications, often in a preposterous tone – harder than diamond, lighter than air. But there is always a catch; they were preventing us from using them, as part of a shadowy conspiracy.

Thorium and the birth of Contorium

Thorium was one of the materials capturing attention at the time. There had been serious discussions about the advantages of thorium reactors, and Turkey is known for having sizable reserves of the element. However, the conversation took a wild turn in 2007 when a prominent Turkish physicist, Engin Arik, died in a plane crash along with her students and colleagues. Arik, an advocate for thorium investments in Turkey, had been on her way to a workshop focused on designing a potential Turkish particle accelerator.

To the general audience, the angle was clear: “Thorium expert dies on her way to a thorium-related conference.” This narrative stoked a wave of conspiracy theories on social media – a wave that later inspired Kuseyri to write his satirical piece about Contorium. The “Con” prefix in the made-up name had an intentionally silly twist; Kuseyri had noticed that, at least in older versions of Windows, you couldn’t create a file or folder named “CON” due to a system naming restriction. This quirk became a playful “try it yourself” cue in the story.

(…) There are explanations, allegedly backed by Mossad and the CIA, claiming that the reason why a file named ‘contorium’ could not be opened was because it was an abbreviation of ‘console.’ (…) You can’t open a folder called ‘con,’ and the so-called isotopes of contorium—‘com1’ and ‘com2’—couldn’t be used as file names either. Do you think it’s merely a coincidence that these abbreviations, supposedly related to the operating system, weren’t even allowed as file or folder names? Of course not. (…)

Initially, Contorium didn’t take off. Perhaps it was too close to the Feomidium incident and the general ridicule surrounding “SPAM metals.” Or maybe it was because of its storyline, deliberately crafted as absurd satire. The initial text featured secret codes hidden in the periodic table designed by Dmitri Mendeleyev himself, plus Contorium had supposed anti-radioactivity properties that could neutralise radiation and a reserve value of $23 trillion for Turkey.

After a few weeks of mockery, Contorium faded into the dusty corners of the internet, seemingly forgotten. But in 2011, it resurfaced in an unexpected way.

The Revival of the Parody

In 2011, a few Facebook posts brought Contorium back into conversation, eventually catching the attention of a national newspaper. In response, Kuseyri created a homemade video using Windows Movie Maker, basic video editing software. He copied scenes from popular dramatic documentaries of the time, such as Zeitgeist and Earthlings, and narrated them using a low-quality microphone. This time, the parody went viral.

The video was an extended version of the initial satire. First, the sciencey jargon was improved with more ridiculous claims, such as providing infinite battery life because of its ‘cracked nuclei’. It also had a more conspiratorial tone; to parody the Gish galloping of conspiratorial narrative, numerous assertions were added, such as the claim that Big Science taught us there could never be two elements with the same atomic number just to hide Contorium, or that the international phone code of Turkey matched Contorium’s supposed atomic number.

First discovered by Dmitri Mendeleyev, Contorium forms the basis of Russia’s policy to reach warm seas. Mendeleyev, whose father was from the Siberian Turks, was pressured to leave the 90th spot on the periodic table blank. However, with a clever move that we can understand today, he put thorium there —which also has atomic number 90— so he could point the way to future research on that element.

(…) Thorium is a radioactive element with an atomic number of 90 and an atomic mass of 232. It is extracted in Gördes, Manisa, Turkey. Now, imagine the map of Turkey as if it were a periodic table. If you travel 367 km north from Gördes —which matches Contorium’s mass number— where do you end up? The answer is obvious: the Bosphorus in Istanbul! (…) After all these events, Turkey was “labelled” by assigning it the international phone code 90 (…)

The parody suggested that Contorium was found only beneath the Bosphorus and was distinctly purple, with Judas trees growing above its richest deposits. This distinctive color supposedly made it easy for outsiders – particularly the stereotypical trope of “rich Arab royals,” often used in secular-nationalist narratives – to identify and exploit these deposits. It was said that they were buying up seaside properties in Istanbul to control the Contorium supply. Mendeleyev was mentioned again, this time as a secret benefactor of Turkey, having left clues in the periodic table about Contorium’s true significance. Even Bill Gates made an appearance in the narrative, tied to Windows’ ‘CON’ file restriction.

The aftermath of the Contorium parody

The video went viral, but it wasn’t satirical this time. The initial reactions to Kuseyri were surreal. Some people offered support for what they saw as activism, others sent partnership quotes about mining Contorium, and some even accused the author of undermining a serious national issue.

It was clear that Contorium struck a chord with an existing narrative. People might have remembered it from the initial wave, or perhaps they were familiar with other “SPAM metals,” seeing Contorium as yet another miraculous material purposefully kept out of reach. These initial reactions also surprised Kuseyri:

…while I was expecting appreciation for my satire, I felt alarmed when I began receiving more sensational or threatening messages instead. I thought that if I confessed right away, the matter would be resolved. I deleted the video. But it didn’t end…

The video was deleted, and a lengthy debunking text replaced the original Ekşisözlük entry, meticulously explaining each joke and fabrication. But, by then, it was far beyond control and had transformed into an urban legend. As Can Güney Kuseyri notes;

After 2011, the situation evolved into something else. Apparently, there’s something called ‘Contorium’, and they’re covering it up by using humour. Otherwise, it couldn’t have spread this widely or been talked about so often by mere coincidence.

Following this, occasionally a politician would reference Contorium in a speech, a columnist would cite it in an argument, or it would resurface in a casual street interview. Meanwhile, Contorium’s name was given to a winning racehorse and a shopping mall.

In a 2018 survey on conspiracy theories, 34% of respondents somewhat agreed with the notion that Contorium was concealed beneath the Bosphorus. While such polls don’t precisely measure the depth of belief, they do highlight Contorium’s lasting impact on collective memory.

A 2018 Konda survey shows that a significant number of respondents found the idea of a Contorium conspiracy plausible. Surprisingly, agreement with the conspiracy showed little variation across political affiliations or education levels.

From joke to belief: why did it catch on?

Contorium is not a unique case. There have been other similar instances, both before and after, where fabricated stories became embedded in society’s collective memory – sometimes as accepted facts, long-lasting urban legends, or occasionally as notorious conspiracy theories. From a skeptical perspective, these cases offer valuable lessons about the roots of society’s susceptibility to such narratives.

Under the hood, fake news and made-up stories share common traits: they appeal to people’s motivational reasoning and confirmation biases. Often, people are quick to accept such narratives. For supporters of the ruling party, it becomes a convenient excuse for not making a step forward; “They are holding us back!” For underdogs, Contorium serves as proof that the other side is either part of a conspiracy or they are simply incompetent.

This also aligns with belief bias, where individuals are ready to believe their great country is being held back by nefarious conspiracy actors in a secret and mythical struggle between good and evil. Any story that resonates with this belief is readily accepted. As the classic half-believer saying goes, “There’s no smoke without fire.”

Some jokes are taken seriously because they align with our existing worldviews. The ‘CERN Ritual Hoax’, which staged a mock stabbing of a woman in front of a Shiva statue at CERN, is a prime example. Despite its obvious parody, conspiracy circles quickly embraced it as evidence of sinister activities.

It also ties into earlier conspiracy theories, such as those surrounding boron. Turkey does indeed have substantial boron reserves, and a common conspiracy theory claims that Turkey is restricted from extracting or processing these resources. This theory, of course, is easily debunked with a quick internet search. Yet, this familiar narrative served both as inspiration for the satire and as a reason why so many people found it believable.

Finally, social media breaks the connection between a story and its original context, making made-up narratives more believable. In a TV parody, there is an unspoken agreement between the audience and the creators that the content is comedic. However, when this context is removed – for example, when a satirical story from The Onion is shared on social media without context – it might be consumed and interpreted differently.

Similarly, most people encountered Contorium framed as part of a serious political issue on social media. They saw it shared on their friends’ timelines, not as casual trolling, but stamped with the “believable fact” approval of likes and retweets.

In the end, Contorium stands as an interesting example of the power of conspiratorial narratives. It might be tempting to dismiss this case as just a humorous tale about gullible people falling for an absurd parody. However, it also highlights how conspiratorial thinking can provide a veneer of plausibility over even the most nonsensical stories, blurring the line between satire and belief.

Further reading

Andrew Tate’s misogynistic BRUV political party is a joke we should take seriously

Abigail Kennedy
-
0
Andrew Tate’s misogynistic BRUV political party is a joke we should take seriously

Andrew Tate, the undisputed king of the manosphere and a figure revered by chronically online and alienated young men turning to far-right ideologies for answers, has announced his intention to run for UK Prime Minister through his newly established political party.

Earlier this month, Tate posted a poll on X, asking his millions of followers whether he should “run for Prime Minister of the UK.” The two voting options were: “YES. SAVE BRITAN” or “No.” Not only does Tate not know how to spell Britain, he also appears unaware that one cannot run for Prime Minister in the UK in the same manner as a US presidential election.

Screenshot of an X post by Andrew Tate containing a poll asking his millions of followers whether he should “run for Prime Minister of the UK.” The two voting options were: “YES. SAVE BRITAN” [sic] or “No.”
Andrew Tate’s semi-literate attempt to enter UK politics (screenshot from X)

Tate’s political party, Britain Restoring Underlying Values (BRUV), promises that “Britain will rise again – stronger, unyielding, unapologetic.” However, calling BRUV a legitimate party is generous. Tate has not filed the necessary paperwork to register it officially, suggesting this may be nothing more than a publicity stunt aimed at gaining Elon Musk’s attention and financial support, funds he desperately needs after recently being released from house arrest in Romania due to allegations of trafficking minors, sexual relations with a minor, and money laundering.

Tate’s party revolves around the glorification of traditional masculinity. This ideology underpins BRUV’s mission as Tate, a self-proclaimed misogynist, perceives the UK as weak and believes that so-called “strong men” are needed to restore it. Twelve of the party’s forty-one tenets emphasise that men have a “sacred duty” to fulfil roles as powerful providers, strengthen their bodies, and “live true to masculine imperatives in all ways,” while eradicating any sign of weakness. While these beliefs are consistent with Tate’s public persona, BRUV’s charter details how he intends to enact them.

Tate proposes raising young men to be “warriors—not worriers”” to “restore our nation’s greatness”, which he defines as being led by “strong men who protect, provide, and lead.” He advocates for the reintroduction of boxing and wrestling in schools to “empower young men to channel their energy, learn self-control, and develop resilience.” While providing young men with healthy outlets can be beneficial, Tate’s focus is on fostering physical dominance rather than encouraging emotional growth, implying that emotional expression should be replaced with aggression. He further claims, “Britain’s revival starts with restoring the virtues of masculinity: discipline, responsibility, and courage”, insisting that “Britain’s men will lead the way.”

Women are notably absent from BRUV’s charter, appearing only in three tenets. Tenet three states, “I prefer loving, rewarding, consensual relationships with beautiful, positive, and virtuous women.” Notably, this is only a preference of his, not an essential. Tenet four claims, “I believe men and women are different and that each has their own unique and important strengths and abilities.” Tenet eight declares, “I believe men have the sacred duty to raise kind, feminine, and virtuous daughters.” These sparse mentions suggest that women have little to no role in Tate’s vision for Britain beyond traditional domestic roles.

The charter also heavily emphasises censorship, indoctrination, and enforcing ‘traditional family values’ under the guise of “protecting childhood”. Tate has called the BBC a “rotten institution” due to its “sexual abuse scandals, allegations of child exploitation, and reports of pornographic content”. Well, it takes one to know one. To combat what he describes as an “attack on our culture,” Tate proposes that the BBC be “purged,” “stripped down, and rebuilt,” sourcing its content from X with community verification, a concept that raises serious concerns about bias and misinformation. It’s unclear whether Tate targets BBC news or entertainment, given his vague references to “pornographic content”.

Tate’s charter appeals strongly to anti-immigration sentiment, glorifying Britain’s colonial past when it “once ruled the waves”. This nostalgia for the British Empire, one of the darkest periods in British history, raises troubling questions about whether Tate seeks to revive militaristic and oppressive governance.

His proposed immigration and crime policies reinforce this suspicion. Tate guarantees that “not a single other boat will arrive on British soil”, invoking ancestral sacrifice by saying, “our ancestors died for” this land. He further states that, as Prime Minister, he would feel “no obligation to save you from that boat no matter how rough at sea”, placing full blame on immigrants for seeking asylum.

His crime policies are harsh and disproportionately target immigrants. One proposal states, “If you are a non-citizen and you commit a crime here—no matter how small—you’re gone. Instant deportation. Zero appeals.” Such policies could easily be abused, enabling mass deportations under the guise of maintaining public safety. This stance seems more about asserting control and power than genuine concern for security.

A white man in a Marine Veteran baseball cap at the 'Tax Day Tea Party in Nebraska, 2010, holds two small US flags, one in each hand, and a hand-written sign that says "SAVE SAVE SAVE AMERICAN JOBS DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS", with all 'save's and 'deport all' underlined, and jobs off to the side encircled. More protestors are standing behind him a short way down the sidewalk.
Similar anti-immigrant sentiment to that found in the US has led to situations like the conservatives’ Rwanda deportation plan, amid ‘Make Britain Great Again’ rhetoric from politicians like Suella Braverman. Photo by Steve White, via Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Tate’s approach to knife crime further underscores his obsession with control. He proposes the “introduction of BBC punishment”, a dystopian practice involving livestreamed solitary confinement for offenders, suggesting that all perpetrators of knife crime would face this punishment without any opportunity for rehabilitation.

It might be easy to dismiss BRUV due to its name or Tate’s reputation as a social media figure known for self-indulgent, shirtless photos on private jets and sports cars. But it is important not to underestimate his real influence. Despite the amateurish PowerPoint presentation of his charter and its reliance on AI-generated images, Tate commands a significant following. As of 2025, he has over 10 million followers on X, giving his message considerable reach. His rhetoric tells young men that they are important, and that they and their masculinity are what’s needed to fight against all the changes that are happening in the world.

In the UK, there is an appeal to celebrities in politics, who claim to be different from “career politicians,” as Tate says on page one of his charter. He said this because he knows public trust in the government in the UK, like in the US, has been eroded. In times of political instability, people look to those who are powerful, stand out, and claim to be a cut above the rest.

This brings me back to Trump’s win in November, and UFC CEO Dana White on election night thanking “the great and powerful Joe Rogan”, highlighting Trump’s strategy of going on podcasts that targeted young male voters. Trump’s success among white men under thirty, winning that demographic by 7%, demonstrates the political impact of this demographic. Tate’s success in radicalising young men online through similar platforms does really concern me.

While it remains unlikely that Tate will become Prime Minister, and this campaign may well be a ploy for attention or to attract Elon Musk’s support, the toxic masculinity he promotes is both seductive and politically potent. Before dismissing Tate as a joke, we think about how this has happened before and remember where a candidate, who too started as a joke, can go.

From the archive: when The Skeptic met an immortality cult, live on TV

Wendy M. Grossman
-
0
From the archive: when The Skeptic met an immortality cult, live on TV

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 2, from 1991.

Apparently immortality breeds aggression. Douglas Adams, for example, had an immortal character in one of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy books. This character, driven to despair by the endless, echoing corridor of Sunday afternoons ahead of him, passed the time by insulting all the people in the universe, one at a time, alphabetically.

The world’s three leading immortals, Charles, Bernadeane, and James, also seemed rather aggressive when they turned up on Central TV’s Central Weekend programme on 8 February 8. I guess it will take a few centuries for them to acquire a certain perspective on life…

The story goes like this, more or less. Sometime back in about 1960 a gospel minister and former nightclub singer named Charles Brown was very ill for several months, and when he recovered he discovered he was immortal. He married a Seventh-Day Adventist named BernaDeane, and he encouraged her to become immortal, too (God is part of the death process; did you know that?).

They met up with another guy named James Strole. Now the three of them are immortal, and travel around the world encouraging other people to become immortal, too – they claim to have thousands of followers (and before you get depressed about this, remember that CSICOP has tens of thousands of followers).

CBJ, as they like to be known, and a synod of their UK followers (who call themselves Together Forever) brought their message to Birmingham on February 8, and Steve Donnelly and I were invited along to be skeptical, live on Central TV.

What’s astonishing is that once they start talking about immortality they come out with the same gobbledygook that spouts forth from any touchy-feely American pop psychology salesman. Consider these quotes from their book: “It takes all that we are. 100% of us, to stir and keep each other’s lives.” And: “Immortality is the deepest intimacy any of us will have.”

A lightly sepia-coloured monochrome photo of three keychains hanging from a 'LIVE, LAUGH, LOVE decorated plaque, which has receipts or other documents stored around it.
Perhaps we can imagine them going all-in on corny decorative trends like this. Image by Cissurz, via Flickr, CC BY 2.0

The followers who were at Central TV were unquestionably dedicated to CBJ and passionate about the change CBJ had wrought in their lives – but, again, in all the usual ways. They were able to accept themselves better, their marriages or relationships were better – one woman said her relationship with her parents had improved.

Mid-programme, CBJ shifted their ground suddenly and said they were not promising anyone immortality. This is useful cover, in case someone dies – or in case someone decides to prosecute under the Trades Descriptions Act.

So, what are CBJ promising that makes their followers so dedicated? The answer is, freedom from the two deepest human fears: fear of death, and fear of being alone. These immortals are a very cohesive group. In the Green Room, for example, before the show, the group sat in a circle, very close together. Some held hands, some draped their hands over their neighbour’s knee. One had a baby with her – and before you say anything, there is absolutely no point in asking these people how this baby’s going to grow up if it’s immortal.

Why? Here is an example of their notion of genetics, taken from CBJ’s book: ‘Science has demonstrated that each cell carries the full image of the total human form.’ From there they get to standard stuff: ‘This is why the life energy emitted from our cells project what we call an energy body.’ How do we know there is a spirit? ‘Kirilean photography’ (sic).

One could make endless fun of this – but there’s no point, because the truth is it doesn’t matter what they say. Their followers are not in it for the quotes. In fact, I suspect followers stick around for the warm fuzzies (as we Americans sometimes call these things) and a very powerful promise: they will never be alone again.

Are CBJ dangerous? Eternal Flame is more like a cult than anything else, and one of the programme’s guests, Ian Haworth, of Cult Awareness, says he knows families that have been broken up by Eternal Flame. I’m sure this is true – another guest was a man whose daughter’s involvement with Eternal Flame has caused problems. On the other hand, families have problems for all sorts of reasons.

BemaDeane said at one point that followers risked nothing – ‘All you have to lose is your death’, she said. It’s a good line, and almost certainly one she’s used before. It’s not quite complete, of course. Followers are strongly encouraged to tithe – that is, donate 10% of their income to Eternal Flame. Followers invest a certain amount of time in what CBJ call ‘intensives’ – sort of emotional let-it-all-hang-out sessions. And there is, ultimately, the pain of disillusionment.

Or is there? As long as the group stays together, I suspect followers will take the deaths of other followers in their stride: obviously, the deceased’s cellular integration wasn’t complete. Even CBJ’s deaths should be rationalised away: negative energy, perhaps, directed at them by people like us. One can imagine them as time goes on, growing more and more paranoid and hostile to the outside, death-ridden world and, concurrently, more and more co-dependent.

Skeptics have nothing to offer these people – and, sadly, they have nothing to offer us. Because, by God, I wish it were true. I don’t want to die. But I don’t want to spend my life with CBJ, either. I guess the only answer is to squeeze 10,000 years of living into the time I’ve got.

Editor’s note: Charles Brown and Bernadeane Brown, two of the three co-founders of the CBJ immortality group, died in 2024.

New Year, New You, New Woo: 2025’s health and beauty ‘microtrends’

Alice Howarth
-
0
New Year, New You, New Woo: 2025’s health and beauty ‘microtrends’

We’re over a month into 2025, so what better time to talk, again, about beauty and wellness trends.

The start of the year is always a tricky time. In the UK it’s pretty dark, cold and, at times, hard to leave the house because it’s slippery from the ice and snow. Most of us have overspent on celebrating Christmas, both financially and emotionally, and while we’re back at work picking up the large number of tasks we put off in December as a “January problem”, we’re not getting paid for what feels like forever as December pay days often fall a bit early.

And then there’s social media. Even the posts that aren’t promoting Dry January, Veganuary, extreme post-holiday dieting and extreme New Year goal setting are either complaining about or trying to positively counter Dry January, Veganuary, extreme post-holiday dieting and extreme New Year goal setting. Which is a valuable goal, but it means we are bombarded from every angle with these ideas. I realise the hypocrisy in this piece, which is part of the same problem, entirely.

It is important to counter the toxic positivity around the New Year, which is why I wanted to cover this topic, but it does mean the media cycle is almost entirely about all the ways in which our bodies, habits and lives suck and what we should be doing to change that. Never mind that a lot of the sucking is entirely foisted upon us and it’s systemic change that’s required to break these cycles.

And look, I’m not saying I’m against setting goals for ourselves that are linked to the New Year – I, personally, benefit from the artificial cut off that is the start of a new year. My own mental health foibles and neurodivergences mean I can be prone to particular thought patterns that I can hack a little bit if I want to make some changes, by linking it to something that feels “fresh start”-esque – even if that fresh start is completely arbitrary.

This year I have a few personal goals that I’m working towards that are tailored to my own personal context. This is not something I do every year, or rather, it’s something I usually do throughout the year as and when I feel it’s relevant to me, but occasionally I use the New Year to kickstart my mindset. So please don’t think this piece is anything to do with criticising people who make New Year’s resolutions. How we set goals for ourselves is entirely personal.

What I am saying, is that this New Year feels especially rough for me. And I think that’s coming from a few places. One of those places is how social media has changed.

a smartphone lying on some grass with the tiktok logo on the screen
A smartphone on the grass displays the TikTok logo on a black screen. Free to use, via Pixabay

I’ve written about TikTok trends plenty of times before. And about the risk of picking up a trend that seems set to take off, only for it to never really get anywhere. TikTok has taken over social media to such an extent that, even if you’re not a TikTok user, you are a consumer of TikTok content. And you are certainly impacted and influenced by how TikTok has shifted our culture.

Historically, marketing using Facebook or Twitter had two different strategies. Facebook was the sort of platform that be irritated if brands posted more than once a day; meanwhile, marketing Twitter was faster paced with a constant stream of updates, so if you wanted your posts to be seen you needed to post a few times a day. TikTok has taken this evolution of speeding up the posting timeline and amplified it to the extreme.

TikTok itself recommends posting between one and four times per day as a starting point to build a brand on the platform. TikTok is fast, with content creators pumping out tons of content per month. This has contributed to a change in the source of the social media we consume, too. Whereas Twitter users often complain about switching their main page from “suggested” content, to content from people they have actively chosen to follow, TikTok is all about the “for you” page, with the algorithm updating its suggestions based on how you scroll through the feed, the type of content you linger on and the type of content you swipe through. This directs particular topics towards users and highlights creators they might not have come across.

This has led to the rise in the micro-trend – trends come and go faster than ever before. For fashion, this is driving fast fashion as people purchase ‘it’ items from cheap manufacturers knowing they won’t stay in fashion for long. It’s also given rise to the trend forecasters, who predict what will take off, but also shape the trend cycle. One forecaster told Harper’s Bazaar:

“I’m just looking at what brands are doing … but a bit of it is that if I want something to be a trend, I’ll say, ‘This is going to be a trend.’”

Because other trend forecasters pick up that tip, repeat it, and suddenly the fact that everyone is talking about the upcoming trend enough to make the trend happen.

How does this affect New Year’s resolutions, and the beauty and wellness world in particular?

As far as I can see – so many of these microtrends that we see coming through the new, shiny, fast-paced, instant gratification social media climate are related to our appearance. Some might be seen as positive trends, like ‘dopamine dressing’: the idea that we should wear the clothes that make us feel good and not shy away from bright colours and bold prints if that’s what brings us joy. But much of it is criticism dressed up as advice.

Do you suffer from ‘brow blindness’ or ‘blush blindness’? Invented ‘conditions’ where you make your brows or blush too bold because you’ve stopped noticing what’s too much on your face. Or, now that the blush blindness ‘condition’ has been invented – how do you deliberately emulate that, in order to look more like Sabrina Carpenter? How can you style an outfit to look more Gen Z and less Millennial? How does that outfit make you look older? Oh my gosh are you still wearing black eyeliner? How ageing! And how about if you try the ‘strawberry make up’ trend, or the ‘mob wife’ look, to look more innocent and adorable, or more empowered and badass?

It’s becoming even more sinister when it combines with celebrity trends. We’re rapidly moving into the Ozempic era, where we are seeing more and more celebrities celebrated for shedding the pounds… and then equally being criticised for how gaunt they look now they’ve lost fat and muscle tone in their faces (a classic side effect of rapid Ozempic weight loss), and how their arms look awful for losing weight so rapidly.

We are also seeing a move towards more natural or ‘undetectable’ cosmetic procedures as we apparently experience ‘filler fatigue’. One cosmetic surgeon informs us that they’re getting clients as young as in their forties coming in asking for facelifts, as well as an increasing number of clients looking to ‘fix’ issues caused by Ozempic weight loss. Another calls this period ‘the great deflation’, as they see a rise in abdomen and arm surgery again to pick up changes in skin laxity caused by rapid weight loss.

Photo of a white person's hands, shown filling a syringe from an ampoule/vial
Filling a syringe from a vial. Photo by Myriams-Fotos, via Pixabay

Meanwhile, articles claim that eye lid surgery and chin implants are set to be all the rage in 2025, as people look to reduce hooded eyelids and puffiness under the eyes, and look to ‘correct’ ‘weak chins’. While Brazilian Butt Lifts have become less fashionable, breast augmentations are in vogue, but the trend has shifted towards smaller, more natural-looking ‘yoga boobs’. There’s also a claim that botox for the neck and decolletage, known as a Nefertiti Lift, is on the rise to make sure our necks look youthful. Yet we are meant to look ‘authentically’ youthful… with ‘undetectable injectables’ and ‘stealth surgery’.

These unnecessary surgical procedures are being presented as a trend in response, in part, to trends like Ozempic weight loss from last year – a perfect conveyor belt of social media, mainstream media and marketing, which curate insecurity and then target it with an expensive solution, which is then touted as an ‘in’ trend that we must all jump on for fear of featuring on this year’s ‘out’ list. Before we know it, that solution has created another apparent flaw that we must feel insecure about and then solve with next year’s trend.

Because according to the society we live in, fat is bad and weight loss is good, but looking like you’ve lost weight is also bad, especially if you’ve used some short-cut that’s been aggressively marketed at you. So, quick, spend all this money to hide the evidence.

Other claimed trends to look out for are the mineral sunscreen trend – because the clean beauty movement thinks regular sunscreen will cause breakouts and skin irritation, despite the lack of evidence to support this. Plus there’s apparently a rise in ‘supplement stacking’… or at least there is if we take the word of the CCO of a Montreal based ‘self-care and beauty boutique’, anyway. The idea is that supplements are obviously required, but everyone is different and unique. So, instead of a one-size-fits-all multivitamin, we should all zero in on what we truly need and buy multiple products to cater for us.

Along similar lines, there’s the trend for fragrance layering or creating a ‘fragrance wardrobe’ – so, instead of spending money on one signature scent, you can look to layer your scented body lotion, body spray and several perfumes at £100+ a bottle, to create a versatility in your daily fragrance and unlock memories and nostalgia with our intentional fragrance selection.

Biotech is also coming to skincare, as we add products derived from algae and bacteria to our skin creams… but then again, ‘skinimalism’ is a trend that’s been growing in popularity over the recent years, with the goal to reduce the number of skincare products we use or combine them to make the process simpler.

And if all these different trends and products are overwhelming and contributing to the rise in burnout we’re all experiencing – no worry, because ‘therapeutic laziness’ is also apparently a trend, where you spend a fortune on a retreat so you can relax and get treatments all at the same time.

For every super-expensive solution offered to customers, there are budget woo versions for those who can’t afford them – like Oatzempic; a drink made of oats, water and lime juice and touted to help with weight loss just like Ozempic does. (Spoiler: it doesn’t.)

There are of course microtrends on plenty of other topics, but I think it’s telling that so many are directed at improving our faces and bodies. Yet, it makes sense that when the world feels out of control – with far-right parties and policies rising across the world, wars, genocides and invasions flooding our news feeds and America literally on fire – that we would look for the things we feel we can control.

But the constant conveyor belt of trends, presented as empowering you to take control of the things that make you feel sad or insecure, is actually feeding a climate that makes us feel insecure all of the time.

We’re constantly told that that insecurity is our fault and if we just lost weight, exercised more, had this nip, that tuck, those fillers or went on that retreat, our lives would be better and we’d feel happier. It’s utterly exhausting to be bombarded every minute of every day with the need to tweak and improve ourselves which implies that something about us is wrong or not quite right. And at the start of the year, it feels particularly exhausting. So stay safe on the internet and feel free to take a break from social media to detoxify self-improvement toxic positivity from your system.

1...678...147Page 7 of 147

Expert skeptical analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal.

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop