Thesis evaluating UK Freemen as part of larger "Truth Movement"

[DNetolitzky]

Hi folks,

I recently ran across an interesting PhD thesis where the graduate student embedded himself in a range of UK conspiracy communities, including the UK Freemen-on-the-Land.

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13147/1/Thesis ... seland.pdf

I thought this might be of interest to the Quatloosians given the investigator's perspective and on how he evaluated pseudolaw as part of a much larger phenomenon.

Donald Netolitzky

[mufc1959]

Thanks. I've added it to my Kindle.

[ArthurWankspittle]

OMG "I may be gone for some time". Warning - it is 250 pages long.
I have started reading it and hope it will be going into the whys and wherefores of the need to "know something you don't know", the continued use of processes where they have never worked, the inability of FMOTL to get on with each other in terms of consensus and organisational hierarchy, and the constant get out clause of "they" have hidden, blocked etc. what the FMOTL needs to prove their theory like an inverted Scooby-Doo ending. (I'd have got away with it if it wasn't for .....)

[TheNewSaint]

I've only read the first couple pages, but the author has already made an argument I don't like: that "conspiracy theorist" is a dismissive, marginalizing term. I disagree. I think it's a neutral descriptive term, and whatever negative connotations it has were fairly earned over the years.

The very term "conspiracy theorist" speaks for itself. Theories are an attempt to prove or disprove a hypothesis; they are eventually proven or disproven. Theories are not an end in themselves, but conspiracy theorists make it one. They're not interested in a resolution; they start with a prechosen narrative and fish about endlessly for a way to make it real.

[Tevildo]

Interesting, certainly - an ethnographic rather than a legal academic view of the subject is a welcome change, especially one from within the "enemy camp", and the comparisons with religious conversion and Faith-with-a-capital-F are a very useful insight into the mindset of the movement. That being said, there are two immediate points I feel compelled to make.

Firstly, and most importantly, he does seem to adopt a very naive approach to the subject. I don't know very much about ethnographic research, but I appreciate that the researcher has to accept neutrally the beliefs and views of their subjects, and Toesland's interviewees all have "genuine" stories to tell; however, he doesn't seem to consider the possibility that at least some members of the movement are not sincere, but instead are just in it for the money - either by selling their products, or avoiding their financial obligations.

The second point, although, to be fair, he doesn't ignore it completely, is his downplaying of the virulent racism and anti-Semitism of the movement. This may be related to the first point and the requirements of academic ethnography, but it is a significant part of their belief system (or, at least, of their published works), and I would have expected him to provide us with some analysis beyond a bare mention in passing.

Thirdly and trivially, it would benefit from another round of proof-reading; several typos, duplicated footnotes, "procession" for "precession", "Duvay" for "Dubay", etc. I'm sure this isn't as critical an issue for a thesis as it would be for something intended for publication, though.

But, still, thanks very much for posting the thesis.

[notorial dissent]

Interesting, certainly - an ethnographic rather than a legal academic view of the subject is a welcome change, especially one from within the "enemy camp", and the comparisons with religious conversion and Faith-with-a-capital-F are a very useful insight into the mindset of the movement. That being said, there are two immediate points I feel compelled to make.

Firstly, and most importantly, he does seem to adopt a very naive approach to the subject. I don't know very much about ethnographic research, but I appreciate that the researcher has to accept neutrally the beliefs and views of their subjects, and Toesland's interviewees all have "genuine" stories to tell; however, he doesn't seem to consider the possibility that at least some members of the movement are not sincere, but instead are just in it for the money - either by selling their products, or avoiding their financial obligations.

The second point, although, to be fair, he doesn't ignore it completely, is his downplaying of the virulent racism and anti-Semitism of the movement. This may be related to the first point and the requirements of academic ethnography, but it is a significant part of their belief system (or, at least, of their published works), and I would have expected him to provide us with some analysis beyond a bare mention in passing.

Thirdly and trivially, it would benefit from another round of proof-reading; several typos, duplicated footnotes, "procession" for "precession", "Duvay" for "Dubay", etc. I'm sure this isn't as critical an issue for a thesis as it would be for something intended for publication, though.

But, still, thanks very much for posting the thesis.

The same could be said of UFO abductees or the evil/benevolent alien overlord crowds.

[Tevildo]

The same could be said of UFO abductees or the evil/benevolent alien overlord crowds.

Well, yes, the main - er - thesis - of Toesland's thesis is that there exists (as far as ethnography is concerned) a definite "truth-seeker" movement, which unites the seemingly-disparate elements of fashionable unorthodox belief. He covers followers of David Icke, alternative medicine, truthers sensu strictu (one of Toesland's pet phrases, for which he might be open to criticism on purely stylistic grounds, but I digress), flat earthers, and the FMOTL movement, based on his involvement with the Truthjuice community. He does a good job of showing that their beliefs do all have a common basis; my concern is that he accepts these beliefs himself, he doesn't check their consistency with the real world.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I've only read the first couple pages, but the author has already made an argument I don't like: that "conspiracy theorist" is a dismissive, marginalizing term. I disagree. I think it's a neutral descriptive term, and whatever negative connotations it has were fairly earned over the years.

I agree and think the interviewees would be pushing the not liking "conspiracy theorist" as a label in the same way as Sovereign Citizens don't like being called Sovereign Citizens. Because that's what the MSM and LE categorise them as. The argument falls flat on its face like when the El-Bay Moorish American argues like a SovCit, makes SovCit type claims and acts like a SovCit. Also, in the UK the best know conspiracy theorist is David Ike. A man who thought he was the second Messiah, had to dress in purple for a while, and thinks the queen is a reptile. You have a hard task separating yourself from the category "nutter" in the eyes of the public if you have the same appellation.
My disappointment so far is that it is not pointed out that these theories are either wrong or "not even wrong". (At one point there is a contradiction within about one page about common law. Pages 201-202. Which backs my argument about FMOTL not playing well together.) I may be wrong in that the information is in references but haven't see it so far. e.g. Tom Crawford gets a mention. An interviewee relates that they were impressed with the turnout at one of the bailiff repossession attempts. But nowhere (so far as I can see) is it stated that one, Tom didn't pay his mortgage and two, he lost in court (despite what people said), the house was eventually repossessed, sold, and Tom may still owe six figures in mortgage and costs.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The essential element of 'truth seeking' seems to me to be that truth is the last thing they want, what they want is for anything but the truth to be true.


A common factor may be that what links the 'truth seekers' is just a common human condition, blaming someone else for things like your crappy life, financial hardship or lack of friends and family. The only real link between all the conspiracists and delusionaries is that they are simply human, not a remarkable discovery.

UK freemen are only 'part' of something in the way that pebbles are part of a beach, the beach being formed by natural processes not in any way due to the pebbles themselves.

[notorial dissent]

If by "truth seekers" he means alternate AU reality, then he may have a point. Many schizophrenics and psychotics have a very thoroughly and internally consistent belief system and behaviors. Doesn't mean there is a shred of reality involved.

[letissier14]

I've just spent 20 minutes speed reading the whole pdf.

Save your time and don't bother. Very boringly written and nothing anyone here wouldn't already know about.

People would be better off reading Quatloos for a better and more in-depth insight into conspiracies and "truth seekers"

[John Uskglass]

I only speed read the FMOTL section, and while it's good to see it logged here for the record, I agree that there isn't anything in it that really expands on what you could glean from reading the material posted on the other threads here.

What's frustrating is that, although the author had extensive contact with some FMOTL's in the E. Riding, even attending a court case with them, he doesn't appear to have taken the opportunity to ask any searching questions. I'd have liked to know more about how his subjects came into contact with FMOTLism, and what it was that made it convincing to them to the extent that they were prepared to put their finances and liberty in jeopardy. Some sociological analysis of who is attracted to FMOTL would also have been welcome.

Also would have been interested in why they persist in believing in that there's some point in their actions even thought they always fail.

There's an interesting thesis to be written on FMOTL in the UK, even a book a la Jon Ronson, but this isn't it.

[exiledscouser]

An interesting read if a little dry. I thought that in the story around the court visit the author was suffering from an objectivity crisis. Interesting that this was written by a theology student and he rightly recognises the parallels between religion and a belief in something like FMOTL.

I don’t think the author was sufficiently objective in the footle section and as a friend of mine would say, he’s got Stockport Syndrome.

[exiledscouser]

Heh. Reminded of Maureen Lipman in the BT ad from years ago; “whaddya mean he’s failed? He’s got an ology!”

https://youtu.be/NK5-2fPyCjA

[The Observer]

I've only read the first couple pages, but the author has already made an argument I don't like: that "conspiracy theorist" is a dismissive, marginalizing term. I disagree. I think it's a neutral descriptive term, and whatever negative connotations it has were fairly earned over the years.

I agree and think the interviewees would be pushing the not liking "conspiracy theorist" as a label in the same way as Sovereign Citizens don't like being called Sovereign Citizens. Because that's what the MSM and LE categorise them as.

I have to agree. I have been disappointed over the last several years to see a growing increase of authors/articles resorting to labels as a means of scholarly discourse rather than present facts and logical reasoning/argument to reach a conclusion. You cannot simply force every person out there into a mold of your own making. People have a wider array of motivations/beliefs/issues as well as psychological drives for deciding to be part of the Sovrun/Freeman movement. Not all of them are "nuts" or "bigots" or "gun whackos" or "grifters" or "misers" or whatever label happens to be the ax that the particular author wants to grind. To be sure, the movement(s) have those types of people present in it. But like all humans, we bring our stupidities to whatever we decide to get involved in, and after that human ego/pride/hubris takes over.