The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby AlanStrangis » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:45 pm

professorpan wrote:The article makes some good points amid the rubbish. As someone who believes in my fair share of conspiracies, yet gets regularly tarred an "anti-conspiracist" on this board, I'd have to agree that confirmation bias often gets in the way of logical thinking.{/quote]
I won't disagree with that, but I think this article really doesn't do much to challenge the reader to think critically.

But some of the smartest people I know are well-versed in conspiracies (the real deal, not "theories"). Are they "disaffected" and "disempowered"? If they are disaffected, they, like myself, *choose* that disaffection.

I think that's one of the core problems with an article like this. It makes no differentiation between 'theories that could be true' and 'theories that have become fact through criminal prosecution'...

From the article:

This fits with the observation that conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance, if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.

The observation is meaningless, because the observation is also applicable to an ongoing investigation and/or prosecution of a criminal conspiracy case, regardless of being a 'big event' or a generic murder or blackmail case.

If new information is presented, it's up to the investigator(s) to both suss out the validity of said info (especially in a court case), and if valid, see if it either supports, alters or destroys the current operating theory, then react accordingly.

When an article misses so badly (which I think this one does), it's worth pointing out what it's really trying to do, which is make conspiracy theorizing look insane, and I humbly suggest that the author himself may be suffering from confirmation bias, given his personal experience(s) with being accused of being part of the western intelligence apparatus.

On the issue of confirmation or cognitive bias, I've always liked the following quote for it's keen observation, and as a self-reminder from time to time...
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.

It's powerful charm when peering down rabbit holes.
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:04 pm

What can possibly explain this global epidemic of 'conspiracy theory'? I suspect it's a particularly virulent form of drapetomania.

Worrying phenomenon, sir. Damned worrying. We thought we'd stamped it out last century.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:47 pm

This fits with the observation that conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance, if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.


The observation is meaningless, because the observation is also applicable to an ongoing investigation and/or prosecution of a criminal conspiracy case, regardless of being a 'big event' or a generic murder or blackmail case.


Its more than meaningless.

If the author had written

...fits with the observation that scientific theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance, if some new information appears to undermine a scientific theory, either the theroy is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.

And it had appeared in New Scientist, it would have been construed as an example of why science is actually a useful tool for evaluating reality.

So the author is basically paying out on conspiracy theories cos they follow a good theoretical model, not a religious one where the theory remains the same and doesn't change despite the facts. Talk about all sorts of bias.

If the author had just said "any theory that involves a conspiracy is just plain wrong" they would have as much validity (ie sweet FA). This is an attempt to delegitimise a subject by association with the idea that any "conspiracy minded thking" is automatically.

Who said "we cannot tolerate conspiracy theories..." ? Just another thought control freak fascist.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10622
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Definition of conspiracy theory

Postby Infernal Optimist » Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:53 am

On the other hand, there is a dangerous side to conspiracy theories. During the cold war, they arguably played a part in sowing mistrust between east and west.


So "conspiracy theory" means CIA-created disinfo. Ok, got it.
Infernal Optimist
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:33 pm

I love this stuff. I can't get enough.

Can we have one about the lure of believing that pet food was poisoned?

How about the lure of believing that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?

How about the lure of believing that tobacco companies lied about the ill effects of tobacco and asbestos companies lied about the ill effects of asbestos and the EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero?

What lures me to believe all these things? I'd like a few "experts" to examine the psychological flaws that lead me to these conclusions, please.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6669
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlanStrangis » Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:44 am

Joe Hillshoist wrote:Its more than meaningless.

If the author had written

...fits with the observation that scientific theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance, if some new information appears to undermine a scientific theory, either the theroy is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.

And it had appeared in New Scientist, it would have been construed as an example of why science is actually a useful tool for evaluating reality.

So the author is basically paying out on conspiracy theories cos they follow a good theoretical model, not a religious one where the theory remains the same and doesn't change despite the facts. Talk about all sorts of bias.

If the author had just said "any theory that involves a conspiracy is just plain wrong" they would have as much validity (ie sweet FA). This is an attempt to delegitimise a subject by association with the idea that any "conspiracy minded thking" is automatically.

Who said "we cannot tolerate conspiracy theories..." ? Just another thought control freak fascist.

All I can say is 'no kidding'. You summed it up pretty well.
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:05 am

The word "conspiracy theorist" is nothing more than a modern day
Mccarthy era lazy pejorative, meant to invalidate someone's information merely because it makes the other person...uncomfortable.

What REALLY strikes me as odd is when liberals dare call people out as "conspiracy theorists". You cant claim the US government lied to get into Iraq, stole the election, etc...but then turning around saying "OMG, you stupid 9/11 theorists!" Its the pot having hot wild sex with the kettle.

And doesnt it seem like 9/11 IS the litmus test? Ive ran into UFOlogists/xfiles researchers, AND people well in the know about JFK and government coverups...but they both, when it comes to 9/11, can't seem to see anything past the "bearded man in a cave" fable.

What I find amazing about the "anti theorists" or "debunkers" is that
they seem to be very angry, as if believing 9/11 was not as it seemed is somehow comparable to holocaust denial.

The same people calling people nuts, most likely believe in SOME form of a conspiracy theory.

Theres so many times in life where ya can point out right there in the newspaper the facts behind a story, yet people just dont want to hear it if it doesnt fit their narrow Colbert/O'reilley left-right vacuum thinking.

"Justice Department behind al Qaeda Sears tower Miami cell plot"
"IDF soldiers captured on Lebanese, not Israeli soil"
"Pat Tilman possibly killed by his own troops"
"Israeli Mossad behind the PLO blamed Entebbe event"
"France involved in Rawandan genocide"
"Chinese oil interests and Sudan behind Darfur genocide"
"Bayer intentionally helped spread AIDS crisis"
"Bush covering up Saudi intel involvement in 9/11"
"Big Pharma using poor black kids on lab rats"
"government dumping toxic VX nerve gas in the delaware"
"US funding all sides of the Iraq civil war"
"White House spent $224 million on fake news"
"White House made up most of the post 9/11 terror threats"

I can find HUNDREDS of mainstream articles that prove real life "conspiracies" in just the last year or two alone.

So I really don't get the "anti conspiracy" attitude.

Were activists/researchers, not "theorists"
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Too many concidences...

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:24 am

"I knew by now that when a group of individuals gravitated toward one another for no apparent reason, or a group of individuals inexplicably headed in the same direction as if drawn by a magnetic field, or coincidence piled on coincidence too many times, as often as not the shadowy outlines of a covert intelligence operation were somehow becoming visible."

— New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Postby semper occultus » Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:48 pm

Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology

Government cover-ups, faked dictator deaths, secret messages in the Wingdings font...Nick Harding reports on a mental contagion

Saturday 12 November 2011

www.independent.co.uk

On 12 January 2009, a hardcore of protesters broke away from a peaceful march in London to vandalise a Starbucks in the East End. Five days later, following a rally in Trafalgar Square, another two Starbucks were ransacked and looted. Nothing unusual there, you may think. After all, along with McDonald's and high street banks, the US coffee chain is an obvious target for anti-capitalists. These London attacks, however, were not spurred by a big business backlash. They were inspired by something far more sinister: conspiracy theory.

The vandalism followed protests against Israeli actions in Palestine and Gaza, and Starbucks was targeted largely because the company, whose CEO Howard Schultz happens to be Jewish, has been the subject of several long-running conspiracies which range from the belief that the company donates profits to the Israeli military, to the suggestion that the woman on Starbucks' logo is Esther, a biblical Jewish prophet.

Starbucks flatly denies these allegations and has taken great pains to identify its sources, pointing out that the logo myth came about because an unintentional similarity between a children's book cover drawing of Queen Esther and the firm's logo, which is actually derived from a 16th-century Norse woodcut. But the assertion of fact largely fell on deaf ears. A few days after the attacks on the London outlets, Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi went on television in his homeland to reinforce the logo myth.

"The girl in the Starbucks logo is Queen Esther," he ranted. "This queen is Queen of the Jews. Can you believe that in Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait and all over the Islamic world hangs the picture of Queen Esther and we buy her products? It is inconceivable!"

The military financing theory is equally traceable. It grew from a spoof letter written in 2006 by Australian anti-Semite Andrew Winkler. The letter regularly surfaces to fuel anti-Israeli feeling. It was circulated via e-mail and social networks in 2010 a few days after nine people were killed by Israeli troops raiding a Gaza-bound Turkish aid flotilla. The viral message spurred a protest outside one of Cairo's Starbucks branches and the company urged people in the region "to verify the facts about Starbucks from reputable and respected sources and to share those facts".

Conspiracy theories are cultural viruses. Once they infect the zeitgeist, it is extremely difficult to stamp them out – no matter how solid the evidence against them is. Studies have shown that people who are prone to believe in conspiracies display an innate bias towards information which supports that conspiracy, no matter how spurious that information is and no matter how solid the evidence against the conspiracy is.

Today, there are more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theory believers than ever before. They range from the simply fanciful – such as the theory that Kentucky Fried Chicken is owned by the Ku Klux Klan which laces the food with a drug that makes only black men impotent – to the labyrinthine, such as the intricacy of theories around 9/11 and the death of John F Kennedy.

Almost every world event spurns a set of conspiracies. According to one new theory, Muammar Gaddafi was not overthrown because he was a crazed brutal dictator; he was ousted and killed because he was plotting to introduce a new Africa-wide trading currency to threaten the dollar. Gaddafi himself was an arch conspiracist. Early on in Libya's uprising, he blamed Osama bin Laden for influencing the rebellion and claimed rebels were fuelled into action by LSD. Perhaps fittingly, there are now conspiracies which claim his death photographs are faked.

From terrorist attacks to high-profile deaths such as those of Princess Diana, bin Laden, and Michael Jackson, each major news event spawns a set of suspicions. While some are harmless, others, such as the Starbucks conspiracy, are used to bolster extremist ideologies. Easily spread through the internet, they can incite and inspire misguided actions and, at their most dangerous, they provide cohesion for terrorist groups, unifying followers behind a particular cause or against a perceived enemy.

Once the quaint preserve of anoraks (think JFK) and X Files fans (alien abduction, faked moon landings and Area 51), they have now become a malevolent modern-day tool which nefarious organisations use to further their aims. Jamie Bartlett, head of the Violence and Extremism Programme at independent think tank Demos, has studied this worrying trend.

"We looked at 50 organisations including far right, far left, cults, religious extremists, radical Christians, radical Muslims, and what we found was that every one of them has some kind of conspiracy attached to it," he says. "The members believe in a conspiracy; sometimes it is a big global one, sometimes one directed at their specific group or interest. The conspiracy holds the group together and pushes it in a more radical direction. It serves to harden the group's ideology."

There are several reasons why conspiracy theories are increasing. Mainly it is because the internet has made it easy to propagate rumour and supposition on a global scale. Social networking sites allow conspiracy theorists to seek out and link with like-minded individuals. Whereas past conspiracies, like those surrounding the death of JFK, took years to formulate and disseminate, ( ....utterly untrue surely... )today's conspiracies develop almost organically. Immediately after 9/11, the internet was abuzz with individual voices questioning the official version of events. These nebulous ideas were able to crystallise as theorists discussed and developed their ideas and formed into a set of theories adopted by groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

People interested in conspiracy also have access to vast online depositories of reference material which can be selectively edited to support an idea. Mobiles with in-built video cameras allow footage of events to be uploaded to YouTube instantly. Video sharing and easily-edited visual content has meant those interested in conspiracies are getting younger and, as such, are a more impressionable audience. Interest in conspiracy has developed into a counter-cultural youth movement.

Bartlett explains: "You still get the old-school anorak conspiracy theorist who spends a lot of time poring over journals looking for tiny anomalies. But you also have the student types who think it is cool to be anti-government, anti-US or anti-imperialist. Then you have a large number of young people from disadvantaged and minority backgrounds who haven't looked into any evidence but accept conspiracies because they hold the belief that the government is corrupt." (....good grief...who'd believe a whacky idea like that ...! )

The number of people who believe conspiracy theories is staggering. According to various recent surveys, a third of Brits believe Princess Diana was murdered (a Daily Mail survey), a quarter believe the moon landings were faked (from Engineering and Technology magazine), nearly half of all Americans do not believe global warming is man-made (a Yale University survey) and 84 per cent of them believe 9/11 was an inside job (a New York Times/CBS poll).

The rise of conspiracy as a cultural phenomenon can in part be attributed to the uncertain times we live in. In the same way that paranormal beliefs and religious extremism peak during times of economic and social upheaval, so too does the number of people who believe in conspiracies. Yet conspiracy theory remains a little-studied area.

Dr Karen Douglas, Associate Professor at the School of Psychology, University of Kent, is one of the leading academics in the field. At a recent conference in London, she presented her work on the psychological factors which drive people to believe in conspiracies.

"There isn't a great deal of data out there on why people believe in conspiracy theories – in terms of research it is a bit of a blank slate," she says.

Studies have identified a core set of psychological variables which correlate to belief in conspiracy theories. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, these include low levels of trust – not just in authority but in individuals – and high levels of anomie, the feeling that things are getting worse, alienation and powerlessness.

In one of her studies, Dr Douglas tested how influential conspiracy theories can be. Two randomly selected groups of people were tested to see how attitudes and belief systems are altered when people are exposed to conspiracy theory material. One group was given material to read which suggested theories about Princess Diana's death and contained details alluding to the common conspiracy that she was killed by the Establishment.

Both groups were then asked a series of questions about their belief systems and their belief in conspiracies. Respondents were asked to grade their answers. Analysis of the answers suggested that those who had read the material were more likely to believe other theories.

"What we found was that people were actually strongly influenced by the theories even though they thought they hadn't been," explains Douglas. "You don't think you are being influenced by them but you are. When you read about them all the time and they are everywhere and growing in popularity, they start to influence how you interpret significant events."

This mental contagion is reinforced even further because, according to studies, belief in one theory suggests believers will accept other unrelated theories. So if you believe Disney planted subliminal messages about sex in the movie The Lion King, you are also likely to believe mobile phone GPS technology is used by the government to monitor citizens, or that the Wingdings font included with Windows has been used to send hidden messages.

As Chris French, Professor of Psychology and Co-ordinator of Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths explains: "The single strongest predictor of whether you believe in a conspiracy theory is whether you believe in other conspiracy theories, even when there is no connection".

Along with his colleague, Robert Brotherton, French has identified a number of personality traits which correlate to whether someone will be susceptible to conspiracy beliefs. These include people who believe things happen to them, rather than as a result of their own actions, and people who hold religious beliefs.

French continues: "Believers are mainly people who are trying to make sense of a chaotic universe and looking for some form of framework to guide them to do that".

Indeed, we as human beings often need major world events to be explained by equally major causes. It is too frightening to live in a world where 19 Arabs with box-cutters can change the course of history in a matter of a few hours. Instead, it is easier to believe that a huge government conspiracy was behind 9/11.

A mistrust of government is a key factor behind many theories. The most enduring of which almost always involve some aspect of malign and underhand government or secret-service activity. While some conspiracy theories remain largely harmless to society, ones that foster mistrust in authority are increasingly being shown to have serious large-scale consequences.

One study carried out by Dr Douglas and her team at the University of Kent discovered that conspiracy theories affect the democratic process. "We asked people to read a range of theories about the government. Without any supporting evidence the theories suggested that governments hide information and are involved in shady plots and that we should be suspicious of them. We found that the people who read that kind of information were more reluctant to engage in the political processes."

The conclusions both Douglas's and French's studies have drawn are that increasingly, people are basing important decisions about issues ranging from voting to vaccinations on conspiracy theory-derived information they read on the internet.

"This is a big issue with a lot of serious implications," says French. "People ... are making life-changing decisions without employing any critical thinking skills."

This lack of critical thinking reinforces questionable belief systems and allows them to spread. Its prevalence in society led the Demos conspiracy study team to call on the Government to introduce measures in schools to help students distinguish between reliable and spurious online sources of information.

They found that schoolchildren were unable to differentiate between the two and that one third of pupils between 11 and 13 thought that Google organises its search hits in order of the reliability of content. They had no idea how search engine optimisation works.

Bartlett explains: "The national curriculum needs to get on top of this and teach kids about these things. In the information age, creation and sharing of content is more unmediated than ever before and there are no useful signs to differentiate between what is good and what is bad. There is an intrinsic value in getting to the truth of something and that is being lost. The fact that lots of people hold absurd propositions regardless of evidence is uncomfortable. It is worrying because of the way in which people are going about understanding the world."

This willingness to believe without question explains why some people have been able to make profitable livings by peddling conspiracy. Take David Icke, for example. The purple tracksuit-clad former BBC presenter and self-proclaimed "son of God" claims that humanity is actually under the control of dinosauroid-like alien reptiles who must consume human blood to maintain their human appearance. As insane as it sounds, he still manages to sell books based on his theories and to pack lecture halls.

At a recent conspiracy theory conference in London, organised by the Centre for Inquiry, and attended by sceptics and theorists alike, some professional theorists took the opportunity to hawk their wares. Ironically, some of the theorists in the audience claimed the academic data presented was part of a conspiracy to discredit conspiracies.

Although it is worth pointing out that some conspiracy theories have been proved true (Watergate, for instance, proved right suspicions about Nixon's dishonest activities) and that authority should be questioned, the warped and selective mindset displayed by die-hard political conspiracy theorists leads to a lack of understanding about how governments work and, on a psychological level, stops people reasoning properly and making deductions based on evidence.

"If you do believe in conspiracy theories, the reasoning you apply is illogical, emotion-driven, irrational, and non-evidence based," says Bartlett. "I don't like people believing nonsense because it doesn't do them any good. Conspiracy theories absolutely demolish the small modicum of trust we still have in our governments. We still need people to trust that sometimes authorities do the right thing, yet there are millions of people who genuinely believe they conspire against and murder their own people."

The truth is out there, and if you know the right places to look, it is not hard to find. But as long as conspiracy theories continue to be propagated and believed on the scale they are today, the truth will remain masked by crackpot theory and myth.

Top five wacky conspiracy theories

Reptiles rule the world

The former BBC presenter-turned-'son of God' David Icke claimed that humanity is actually under the control of dinosauroid-like alien reptiles who must consume human blood to maintain their human appearance.

The moon landings were faked

A classic among conspiracy theories: proponents allege that the moon landings never took place, and were faked by Nasa with possible CIA support.

Bar codes = mind control

Some conspiracy theorists have proposed that barcodes are really intended to serve as a means of control by a secretive world government. Others believe they contain the 'mark of the beast'.

Font of secret knowledge

The Wingdings font is said to feature subliminal messages. In 1992, it was discovered that the character sequence 'NYC' in Wingdings was a skull and crossbones symbol, a Star of David, and a thumbs-up gesture. Microsoft strongly denied this was intentional.

Finger lickin' foolery

One theory purports that the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise is owned by the Ku Klux Klan, and that the chicken is laced with a drug that makes only black men impotent.


Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to....the utter transparent shite propagated in the MSM....

:wallhead:
Last edited by semper occultus on Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Postby Searcher08 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:50 pm

Nick Harding is a hardcore reductionist windbag worshipper of Scientism, who dreams dreams of being the next Cardinal Dawkins and write books like 'How to be a Better Atheist" and articles featuring his friends / fellow acolytes like Chris French and Karen Douglas and David ("I will debate Richard Gage on 9/11 anytime, anywhere" (*) ) Aaronovitch.

As semper points out, Harding also shows a stunning lack of understanding deep politics.
but hey, Harding is using "Critical Thinking" and "Reason" (**) lol












(*) Offer not valid on planet Sol 3
(**) "Critical Thinking" and "Reason" copyright 2011 James Randi and friends
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Pay no attention to Conspiracy Theory

Postby Sounder » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:16 am


Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology


The implicit assumption here is that conspiracy theories are by nature, lies, while the missives of authoritative voices are truth. How convenient.

It is too frightening to live in a world where 19 Arabs with box-cutters can change the course of history in a matter of a few hours.

No not really, but presenting as evidence things like a hijackers drivers license found amid the tower rubble kind of spoiled that particular conspiracy theory.
Instead, it is easier to believe that a huge government conspiracy was behind 9/11.

Who said it was a govt. conspiracy? Rather, it was a conspiracy of elements that use the authority of govt. to cover for depraved self-serving agendas. Not much different than prior sociopaths that have long used coercive methods to steer their respective political units into feeding the elite on the blood, sweat and toil of the common man.

While some conspiracy theories remain largely harmless to society, ones that foster mistrust in authority are increasingly being shown to have serious large-scale consequences.

So what’s more important, truth or authority?

Truth will out in the end and yes our mistrust of authority may indeed have serious large scale consequences, praise be to Source.

Like fer instance, the dismantling of current vertical authority distribution systems because really it’s pretty easy to see that a constant commitment to maintaining a normative understanding of events guaranties that one cannot be an objective observer.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Postby slomo » Sun Nov 13, 2011 1:13 pm

By God, something must be done about this modern technology threat!
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Postby 82_28 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:37 pm

Hahaha. What a fucking maroon.

I for one don't "believe" in any conspiracy theory at all. In fact, I don't believe in anything save for idealism that one day a critical mass will understand that well, I dunno, the empire never ended maybe.

The real conspiracy is this: that the power and influence of the past is being researched, disassembled, synthesized with this iteration of pop-skepticism and over-reaches of current marketing and it is easier than ever to do so with the Internet. Have these idiots who discount "conspiracy theory" not ever read a book or watched a movie that entails a plot? The human mind is capable of a great many complex conspiracies on its own. We're to believe that the powerful and wealthy do not have this ability like the rest of us do? I dig up nefarious conspiracies all the time in this hobby I have and viewed through the lens of having a different decade to look at it in, you can see the glaring inconstancies and naiveté of other generations simply because they did not have the Internet in which they could use to cross-check the data.

Rigor, intuition and not being a fascist basically spring to mind as to how you tool yourself, within yourself and then go from there. I wouldn't for instance use the terms "rigor" and "intuition" when describing what the most valorous traits one can have were it not for say, Jeff, using this here Internet himself and opening up formative doors that I was trying to find and open at the same time previously.

I don't get why people are so averse to "conspiracy theory".
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Postby sunny » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:53 pm

"I don't get why people are so averse to "conspiracy theory"."

Conditioning.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory

Postby Nordic » Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:52 pm

Blatant propaganda. I like how the o.p. equates any conspiracy theory with "aliens killed JFK" -- that's a favorite of the ptb, including the jackass who runs Dailykos. And I have to say, that's a fictional strawman anyway -- has anyone ever actually heard of a theory accusing alien involvement in the jfk murder? Uh, no.

Then we get treated to something that basically is trying to tell us that any criticism of Israel is "crazy" and the suggestion is implicit that its also racist. Then we see the words "sinister" and "malevolent" and "virus" used to describe those who don't believe the official stories.

Ultimately this falls back onto the old technique of using fear. Be afraid of anyone who thinks outside the bx, be afraid if you find yourself listening to these people, be afraid or anyone who is not an Official Authority Spokesperson.

Silly desperate shit.

They are getting desperate.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests