The Devil is Within You: the Problem with Conspiracy Theories

[TBerg]

Within the decadent West, we have bought into a fundamental lie. We now believe that the ills that plague us came to us by an attack from a foreign agent, but we have not considered whether our own hygiene is the real fault.

As we looked at the problems of our impoverishment, we thought that it was the lack of fertile soil that prevented our growth of nutritious fruit. But we did not consider whether there was righteous light shining upon the plants to give them the energy to use the soil. We fed the plants nitrogen in hopes that it would be put to good use. But the plants withered.

Thus we see how welfare policy destroyed the dignity and the virtue of those on whom it bestowed its cruel blessings. Those for whom the basic definition of livelihood was a welfare check had difficulty seeing a life of their own industry and creation. Without a model of virtue within the household, the boy struggles to find one. The most notable outside hope would be the life of a thug, in which a glimmer of dignity is stolen from the position of misery. But society tells us that the problem lies not within their circumstances, but within som sort of outside force imposing itself onto the community of degenerates.

I am also a degenerate. I can sympathize greatly with the aspiring thug, because I know what it is like to grow up without a strong make role-model. I am also a social retard whose frailty has burdened others in social environments. I went through periods in which I had strong attractions to beautiful men and thought myself actually to be a woman. Society would tell me that my real enemy is anyone telling me my feelings are disordered or wrong, but they have no idea how much the impulse to blame others leaves your own soil without a ray of sunshine.

The soil is replete with trendy fertilizers promising transformation, when in actuality it prompts genetic mutations that cause life-destroying birth defects. As we cannot see even into our own past with the ray of sunshine, how are we supposed to truly reflect on a confused culture that is never satisfied with the future of trendy thing after trendy thing? Wouldn't the simplicity of reproductive virtue be the true meaning of life itself?

Which brings us to conspiracy theories. When we have the basic strength of character to propel us through the most pressing times in our lives, then we will have the fortitude to impose our virtue upon those who rule over us. Our minds are clear, our souls untroubled, and our bodies clean and strong. None can assail either our character or our logic, and so we win by default. Even if we did defeat the conspiracy at the top, who would rule in their stead? Our own degenerate souls? Thus conspiracy theory becomes a scapegoat for our own degeneracy. We thought we defeated the Devil, but we forgot that the Devil tricks not only others, but also our own wretched hearts and minds.

The conspiracy is within you.

 

[Intolerable]

Like with most cause the consequence is an invisible hamstring that doesn't reveal itself until we've tried it out.

The consequence in welfare and other safety nets of its kind is that it circumvents survival in the mind. If we don't learn how to survive we are lazy, vulnerable, paranoid beings.

Tied to welfare we never learn how to stand on our own two feet. Think of it in terms of consistency. A life should be one of gradual progress whereby the need to survive makes itself clear from the onset and through life stays in the rear view close enough to push you.

Through standing on our own two feet we learn how to play the game, the importance of following a known path, the importance of listening to and respecting elders, etc. There is a reciprocal nature in the game that is lost when the game is lost.

A human being that doesn't get a chance to partake in this game is surprised suddenly by the complexity later on. They've rightfully felt cheated though they can't put their finger on it. They ascribe a meaning at that point. It must be that the game is unfair, that something about them makes it a personal attack. That some group of people has cheated them out of more.

It doesn't help that these challenge-impaired are raised to believe the world is theirs. That only accelerates the paranoia.

Though that said yes, the conspiracy is a byproduct of our welfare dilemma.

 

[Sinny91]

Within the decadent West, we have bought into a fundamental lie.

Which brings us to conspiracy theories.

Even if we did defeat the conspiracy at the top, who would rule in their stead? Our own degenerate souls? Thus conspiracy theory becomes a scapegoat for our own degeneracy. We thought we defeated the Devil, but we forgot that the Devil tricks not only others, but also our own wretched hearts and minds.

The conspiracy is within you.

Bravo...

Chip off the old block haha.

 

[Black Rose]

People form their own isolated pockets of reality. When they are exposed to a wider breadth of evidence outside that bubble it changes their whole perspective. But in so many instances that evidence is categorized into preselected ideology. Only through expereince can they understand where they made their mistakes. But this is not a guarantee that they will change their mind. Cognitive dissonance will force them to change but only if they stop and reflect on their uncertainty. If you know you are always right, then new evidence will not lead you to the truth of a larger reality. I take everything with a grain of salt. Some people are not as virtues as they present themselves. Some people deliberately choose the wrong decisions and are not forced into those decisions by circumstance. I am skeptical of any identity that was not thought out through self reflection. What may seem like a realistic rational decision really is not, because it assumes everyone else is rational when that is not the case. Some people act on impulse and some people make the conscious choice not to do the right thing.

 

[TBerg]

Bravo...

Chip off the old block haha.

I don't know whether you understood me or not.

 

[Sinny91]

You know, I didn't actually see the end of the title on my device last night/this morn/whenever...

Does change the context.

 

[bvanevery]

Have you considered that whenever you invest your energy into fear - whether fear of conspiracies, or your sexuality, or whether welfare will ruin you or society - you're basically just carving your own path through the universe? One of fear.

Why bother?

You may think you need to save yourself. Well, uh, stop living fearfully.

You may think you need to save others, to "warn" them about impending dooms. Such as all the awful things that are going to happen to the world, or to individuals, if they take welfare assistance. Have you ever considered that it's mainly your own problem, your own fear, all in your mind? Someone eats, someone cheats, what's it to you? Do you really think there isn't enough wealth or material production in industrial societies? Do you think the actual conditions of scarcity are anything other than artificially maintained?

But I shouldn't try to spend too much time arguing rationally about it. That just fuels the fear response. It is an emotional drive, which conscripts reason to false ends. You will invest yourself in as many reasons to be fearful as you can possibly imagine, so long as your basic emotional drive is to be fearful. The emotional drive protects itself: you want to be fearful, because you think the fear creates a certainty of task or action for you. Your real, true, deepest fear, is an uncharted unknown.

 

[Inquisitor]

Agreed. It's always easier to blame others for your suffering than to blame yourself or express gratitude for the things others provide you. We're seeing this now with all the Bernie Sanders supporters. The message is basically: "The rich are ruining your life." And people are buying into it hook, line, and sinker. I am astounded by the amount of passion/vitriol against the upper class.

 

[Sinny91]

Haha, I heard that your guy Bernie Sanders is supposed to be a 'radical' because he supports things such as free health care? And a whole bunch of other policies we have here in Britain.. radical man, radical.

The fear consumes me!

I can't be bothered to defend the notion of so called conspiracy theories.
I'm tired of so many subjects being met with utter ignorance..
Opinions from back seaters such as Tberg are of little consequence.

 

[Grayman]

http://time.com/3997033/conspiracy-theories/

Studies show that you are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if you feel a lack of control in what is going on around you.

 

[TBerg]

Have you considered that whenever you invest your energy into fear - whether fear of conspiracies, or your sexuality, or whether welfare will ruin you or society - you're basically just carving your own path through the universe? One of fear.

Why bother?

You may think you need to save yourself. Well, uh, stop living fearfully.

You may think you need to save others, to "warn" them about impending dooms. Such as all the awful things that are going to happen to the world, or to individuals, if they take welfare assistance. Have you ever considered that it's mainly your own problem, your own fear, all in your mind? Someone eats, someone cheats, what's it to you? Do you really think there isn't enough wealth or material production in industrial societies? Do you think the actual conditions of scarcity are anything other than artificially maintained?

But I shouldn't try to spend too much time arguing rationally about it. That just fuels the fear response. It is an emotional drive, which conscripts reason to false ends. You will invest yourself in as many reasons to be fearful as you can possibly imagine, so long as your basic emotional drive is to be fearful. The emotional drive protects itself: you want to be fearful, because you think the fear creates a certainty of task or action for you. Your real, true, deepest fear, is an uncharted unknown.

What I am saying is that, if I come from an environment in which I had a weak male role model but without the culture of welfare, then a lot of the problems I experience occur to an even greater extent among people with less intelligence, worse cultural milieu, and more miserable general circumstances. I am saying that if I am affected negatively by the perpetual cultural revolution of the Left, then others would be even more so affected.

Let's see what your condescending lackadaisical attitude towards change has brought:

Republicans have more sex and more children than Democrats. They have a relentless campaign within their cultures that facilitates coupling and child-rearing. While wealthy leftists might also have good standards within their relationships, their fantasies do not trickle-down to the miserable working-class, in which lack of cultural institutions has pushed social problems into the empowerment of the state Leviathan. When workers and the underclass are unable to take care of their own children and neighborhoods, that means we travel further down the route of communism. Then we become more like the slothful Europeans, who paved their own socialist paths only under American security assistance and financial aid.

The fact of the matter is that the less we talk about individual virtue, the more we have to talk about collective action, which normally empowers both the mob and the state. That means we lose more and more freedom the less we place responsibility upon the individual for their own circumstances. A liberal state is intimately tied to a conservative society. You must have virtuous individuals if you want to have them transact in freedom. All of our founders understood this, according to their own philosophical variants.

 

[TBerg]

http://time.com/3997033/conspiracy-theories/

Studies show that you are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if you feel a lack of control in what is going on around you.

Which is why I wrote a critique of the mindset that obsesses over conspiracies.

 

[Yellow]

http://time.com/3997033/conspiracy-theories/

Studies show that you are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if you feel a lack of control in what is going on around you.

Shame on you, stealing what I was going to say.

It's an indicator of your locus of control. Those who have a strong external locus of control are more likely to blame/depend upon external factors as being the primary influence in their life.

It can be unhealthy in that it cripples your feelings of self-efficacy, biases your insight, and even limits your self-esteem. I'm not saying the conspiracies theories are to blame, they're more like dead canaries.

However, there are others indicators as well. Like buying lottery tickets every week, blaming the government for one's chronic unemployment, adhering to superstition, or consistently blaming one's bad exam scores on the teachers.

 

[Sinny91]

http://time.com/3997033/conspiracy-theories/

Studies show that you are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if you feel a lack of control in what is going on around you.

And my own personal studies show that you are more likely to not believe in 'conspiracy theories' if you have successfully been initiated and brained washed by the CIA/Travistock propaganda & mind control machines at work.

The CIA’s Invention of the “Conspiracy Theorist”: Smear Campaign to Discredit Dissenters

In his 2013 book, Conspiracy Theory in America, author Lance deHaven-Smith traced the term “conspiracy theory” back to a CIA propaganda campaign that was designed to discredit doubters of the Warren Commission’s fake search into who assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas. In this light, the use of this pejorative term is obviously a tactic to shame and humiliate those who saw through the ulterior motives of the commission, and thus effectively censor out or even banish anyone who questions official government accounts.

The Warren Commission, to its eternal shame, ignored the testimony of a multitude of eye witnesses to the crime that proved that there were shooters both behind and in front of Kennedy’s motorcade. Many witnesses, none of whom were called to testify, had heard shots coming from the grassy knoll in front of the motorcade.

One of those eye-witnesses was an emergency room physician that attended Kennedy’s dying body. He would have testified to the commission that there was a tiny entry wound in JFK’s throat as well as a large exit wound that blew off the back of his head (depositing a chunk of his brain on the trunk of the limousine – which Jackie was shown retrieving in the famous film of the assassination by Abraham Zapruder).

Anyone with discerning eyes saw JFK’s head being violently thrown backwards from the head shot, thus proving that that shot had come from the front (as did the neck shot), thus disproving the single shooter theory and proving that the assassination of the president was indeed a conspiracy (i.e., more than one entity plotting an evil deed).

Hence the CIA’s cunning ploy (with the pejorative “conspiracy theorist” label) to discredit those who had taken on as their duty to be skeptical of what was indeed another of the Big Lies that regularly come from political entities that want our trust and votes; from advertising campaigns from corporations that want our trust and money; from government and military entities that want our trust and support; and from the for-profit media entities that want our trust and money. All those entities had to be involved in the crime and cover-up of the events of 9/11/01.

Both the Warren and 9/11 commissions were, in effect, saying “Hey you American idiots, listen up. How many times do we have to tell you that this case is closed? We got our crazed lone gunman; now just be obedient children and resume your shopping, brain-numbing amusements. celebrity worship and vegetating on the couch cheering for your favorite professional football, baseball, hockey or basketball teams.”

Or they may try to reassure us a bit more diplomatically by saying “trust us when we say that those heinous crimes were simply committed by lone gunman like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Osama bin Laden or Adam Lanza (despite all the evidence to the contrary) – and those cases have been neatly wrapped up (by hook or by crook).” “So just move on – there is nothing more to see here; and, should you continue to have doubts about our official stories, just be sure to remember what happens to conscientious whistleblowers like Martin Luther King, Chelsey Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange when they go poking around where they’re not wanted.”

There have been many America military/government/corporate conspiratorial dirty tricks that were initially denied by the propagandizing powers-that-be but which were later admitted to – after diligent and courageous whistle-blowing investigative journalists proved the conspiracies. In every case the powers-that-be had been, in effect, calling the truth-seekers “conspiracy theorists”.

Such a list could mention hundreds of examples, including the following short list that occurred during recent presidential administrations:

1) Of significant note was the 1934 fascist conspiracy to overthrow FDR. The plot was conceived of and funded by Republican Party financial elites who hated FDR and admired (and wished to replicate) Hitler’s “economic miracle” that had resulted in tremendous growth and profits for German corporations (preparing for war in Germany’s rapidly developing armaments industries). The plot was foiled by two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner Major General Smedley Butler, who had been secretly approached by the Wall Street titans of industry to lead the coup;

2) The Eisenhower-era’s U2 spy plane that was shot-down over the USSR;

3) The Kennedy-era’s Operation Northwoods (the US Joint Chiefs of Staff plot to start a war against Cuba by blowing up innocent US citizens and blaming it on Castro);

4) The Johnson-era’s Gulf of Tonkin episode and the cover-up of the Israeli Air Force’s attack on the USS Liberty; the My Lai Massacre cover-up;

5) The Nixon era FBI’s anti-leftist COINTELPRO; the Watergate conspiracy; the CIA’s MK Ultra mind control program; the secret bombing of Cambodia;

6) Ronald Reagan’s lies about trickle-down economics; the illegal wars that devastated Central America; the Iran-Contra scandal (selling weapons to Iran in exchange for US hostages);

7) George Bush the Elder’s encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait; the lies about the Kuwaiti baby-killing that encouraged Congress to start Gulf War I; the CIA’s drug-running operations;

8) The Clinton-era’s secret negotiations that fast-tracked NAFTA, which encouraged corporations to ship manufacturing jobs overseas;

9) The George Bush the Younger and Dick Cheney era’s CIA Black Sites for purposes of torture; lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction; lying about the illegal wiretapping of Americans;

10) The Bush and Obama-era’s use of – and denials about – the drone program to ambush and extra-judicially massacre terrorism “suspects”; and denying the simultaneous “collateral murder” of many innocents – (google ”collateral murder”);

So – back to the title question - why do so many average American citizens prefer to think that our government would be telling the truth about the events that led America into a series of military misadventures and the current quagmire that never ends?

Admittedly, many citizens have been effectively brain-washed and many have been too busy, too distracted, too exhausted, too TV-addicted, too mesmerized by entertainment or sports to have even bothered to look at the abundance of evidence that overwhelmingly disproves much of what the powers-that-be want us to believe about world or domestic affairs. And there are many folks who don’t have the internet access or computer power to be able to view what 911 truth-seekers have been asserting.

There are many citizens who may be cognitively unable to separate truth from fiction and have succumbed to the continuous barrage of the Big Lie propaganda that is so rampant in the media (with no balancing information allowed that would expose the real truth). In other words, many good folks simply believe what they have been told. Without good information, it is hard to see clearly.

Lack of critical thinking skills and borderline intelligence can be factors in accepting untruths as can just being unable to think clearly because of the chronic use of brain-altering psychiatric drugs or mind-altering illicit drugs or alcohol.

Many Americans only get their news and opinions from pseudo-patriotic, pro-corporate sources, which operate under water-tight political agendas that prohibit the publication of any information that would expose official secrets.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ci...mear-campaign-to-discredit-dissenters/5403876

Wake up and smell the fucking coffee. The 'conspiracy theories' you are so hostile towards are today's para-politics - the politics & policies which they don't want YOU to paying attention to.

Who's the fucking idiot here?

People aren't 'obsessing' over fanciful 'conspiracy theories' just to get their rocks off, because they have nothing better to do. Surely sitting around on the internet quoting Kant all day long would be a less aggravating pastime. People are obsessing over today's para-politics because our western world leaders take a stand on our podiums each and everyday and lie through their fucking teeth to us, about how they are trying to 'revive and rescue' our nations whilst they are selling us out, right beneath our noses.

What do you think the Official Secret acts are hiding?
D-notice's?
Why do they need to legalise propaganda against our own citizens?
What is the purpose of the propaganda?
Who can see past the propaganda?
What lies beyond the propaganda?
Then those who do question the propaganda are labelled 'Conspiracy Theorists'. Uhuh, really. This shits not even hard to figure out.
At time's like this, I seriously lack faith in humanity.

Funny how I never see you guys asking these sorts of questions, rarely any questions in fact, and I thought ya'll supposed to be inquisitive.

Much easier to start diagnosing 'us lot' with mental issue's - Of course my obsession with 'conspiracy theories' originates in my fear of having a lack of control over the external world, it has nothing to do with the fact my government is treasonous and engaged in illegal foreign policy !!!

Trust the armchair philosophers to have it all sussed out.
Beggars belief.

 

[Grayman]

And my own personal studies show that you are more likely to not believe in 'conspiracy theories' if you have successfully been initiated and brained washed by the CIA/Travistock propaganda & mind control machines at work.

Situations are often a result of multiple factors outside of any one persons control. No one is denying that there are issues with our government. We are denying that every situation is the the result of direct and methodical planning of a specific institution. We recognize that many situations occur indirectly because of multiple issues, system glitches, and unintended consequences of others in blind pursuit of unrelated goals.

 

[Yellow]

And my own personal studies show that you are more likely to not believe in 'conspiracy theories' if you have successfully been initiated and brained washed by the CIA/Travistock propaganda & mind control machines at work.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ci...mear-campaign-to-discredit-dissenters/5403876

Wake up and smell the fucking coffee. The 'conspiracy theories' you are so hostile towards are today's para-politics - the politics & policies which they don't want YOU to paying attention to.

Who's the fucking idiot here?

People aren't 'obsessing' over fanciful 'conspiracy theories' just to get their rocks off, because they have nothing better to do. Surely sitting around on the internet quoting Kant all day long would be a less aggravating pastime. People are obsessing over today's para-politics because our western world leaders take a stand on our podiums each and everyday and lie through their fucking teeth to us, about how they are trying to 'revive and rescue' our nations whilst they are selling us out, right beneath our noses.

What do you think the Official Secret acts are hiding?
D-notice's?
Why do they need to legalise propaganda against our own citizens?
What is the purpose of the propaganda?
Who can see past the propaganda?
What lies beyond the propaganda?
Then those who do question the propaganda are labelled 'Conspiracy Theorists'. Uhuh, really. This shits not even hard to figure out.
At time's like this, I seriously lack faith in humanity.

Funny how I never see you guys asking these sorts of questions, rarely any questions in fact, and I thought ya'll supposed to be inquisitive.

Much easier to start diagnosing 'us lot' with mental issue's - Of course my obsession with 'conspiracy theories' originates in my fear of having a lack of control over the external world, it has nothing to do with the fact my government is treasonous and engaged in illegal foreign policy !!!

Trust the armchair philosophers to have it all sussed out.
Beggars belief.

There's a difference between a passing knowledge of para-politics and believing that the Rothschilds want to eat my babies. I think the majority of us understand the issues with news media, corporate and government manipulation, and the financial traps we find ourselves in.

That's really not the point, and nor is it what we mean when addressing conspiracies. It really and truly doesn't matter whether jet fuel can melt steel beams. It doesn't matter if Jimmy was procuring trafficked children. It doesn't matter if the government is hiding aliens from us.

We know our history of messing with people of darker-complexions in order to increase our wealth. We know that the assignment of "other" status allows our masses to accept their exploitation.

We know that power is corrosive, and that like drug addicts, the wealthy are concerned only with amassing more.

We understand that trafficking/enslavement for sex and labor is the foundation of our lives of leisure. We remember that black slaves are still picking our cotton in Uganda and mining our diamonds and other valuable minerals throughout Western Africa. We know that SE Asian governments are selling their young women all over the world (especially the Middle East) as "domestic workers" knowing full well what fate might hold for them. We know that children are pedaled for sex on the streets, on darknet, and between family homes.

We've learned that the government has all of our dick pics. We know that Google, Microsoft, Facebook, banks, and every other commercial establishment you've "joined as a member" own the knowledge of everything we do and everywhere we go, and that all the government has to do is say "gimme" and they've got all the surveillance they need.

If you really want to educate people, go big. Talk about the $2,000,000,000 the NSA just spent to store everything forever, bringing the term "yottabytes" to our attention. Lecture to the druggies about the slave-farming that goes into supplying them with heroin and cocaine. Tell us about the thriving virginity market.

These things are real, everyday, and horrible.

We don't need the added noise of the theorists favorite little targets. Rupert Murdock, or whoever they're talking about these days, doesn't mean anything.

That's where the external locus of control comes in. "There are like 20 people who run the world. They are to blame for everything." No. We're to blame. We buy the diamonds from those cheap jewelers knowing full well where they came from. We buy millions of pounds of beef and shrimp every year with the knowledge that slash-and-burn deforestation and massively destructive fishing practices made it possible. We exchange our rights and privacy for a sense of security.

We make these choices everyday. I do this. You do this. We empower the villains of the world to do whatever the fuck they want because we can't be bothered to make slightly-less-easy choices. It's no conspiracy.

 

[Intolerable]

@Yellow Well said.

The only thing I'll add ( and Sinny has read me saying this before ) is that the ignorance of the wealthy doesn't make them intrinsically bad people.

If any of us had the power to speak louder, to push harder than the rest of us we would probably do it. Just on the strength of our own bias. It's exceptionally rare for the most powerful to cede to the least powerful. Especially in the context of opinion.

The REAL problem here is centralized government.

 

[Sinny91]

I agree with everything you have said Yellow. (Almost)
I'm aware of the majority of barriers which prevent us breaching this impasse, but what pisses me off is other people's lack of willingness attempt to overcome those barriers.

Much easier to remain apathetic & dismissive.
We may be fighting a loosing battle - personally I think we are.
But if we don't fight we've already lost.

There's a difference between a passing knowledge of para-politics and believing that the Rothschilds want to eat my babies.

Also pisses me off when people take things out of context in order to detract from the seriousness of certain subject matter. The Rothschild Dynasty is responsible to making us all modern debt slaves. I don't need to distort the truth to prove my point. The only person propagating a ridiculous conspiratorial angle here is you, yes I know your perspective is satirical, but you are enabling and propagating the very negative aspects associated with the lable 'conspiracy theory'. It's a cynical position within an ideology, the anti-thesis to the thesis, such as one SJW using his freedom of speech to call for a ban on a different SJW's free speech.

 

[Grayman]

That's where the external locus of control comes in. "There are like 20 people who run the world. They are to blame for everything." No. We're to blame. We buy the diamonds from those cheap jewelers knowing full well where they came from. We buy millions of pounds of beef and shrimp every year with the knowledge that slash-and-burn deforestation and massively destructive fishing practices made it possible.

This effect is multiplied by the wage disparity. Even in US kids go to school hungry. Cheap food is a necessity for them.

 

[Yellow]

I agree with you in sentiment, though I don't know that I've ever seen shrimp on the school menu, and those weekly "beef patties" are arguably more filler than beef.

By the way, speaking of conspiracies.. I've witnessed Purina brand "filler" being added to prison inmates' meat-product meals at a ratio of over 50% filler (for those unfamiliar with the brand, they make pet food. I can't find anything online suggesting that they've branched out to the human market). They had huge flour-sack sized bags of it in the kitchens. I once watched them serve the filler alone as "oatmeal" during a breakfast run when a shipment of real food was late. Since inmates and students are fed basically the same food, I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to be in the kiddies' food as well. It certainly tastes the same.

 

[Analyzer]

What makes something a conspiracy theory?

 

[Grayman]

What makes something a conspiracy theory?

Typically it is assumed power corrupts a person completely. Based on this you must believe than anytime a person had an opportunity they took it ignoring any personal moral standards or principles because they have none. You needn't prove intention like you would in court. Opportunity infers guilt.

Forms of power:


1. Money. Banks, Rothschild, corporations, 1%, IRS
2. Authority. Government, police, IRS, Schools, religion
3. Popularity. Mind washing.

 

[Yellow]

What makes something a conspiracy theory?

I dunno, I think I'm comfortable with Wikipedia's definition:

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful. Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of historical events or simple facts.

One common feature of conspiracy theories is that they evolve to incorporate evidence against them, so that they become unfalsifiable and, as Michael Barkun argues, "a matter of faith rather than proof."

 

[Analyzer]

I dunno, I think I'm comfortable with Wikipedia's definition:

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful. Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of historical events or simple facts.

One common feature of conspiracy theories is that they evolve to incorporate evidence against them, so that they become unfalsifiable and, as Michael Barkun argues, "a matter of faith rather than proof."

Highlighted seems like common sense theorizing which has been masked by disinformation or propaganda. Various examples of coup d'état throughout history including the American revolution.

If conspiracy theory meaning putting forth dogma and neglecting simple facts then religious and political institutions are most at fault.

 

[Tannhauser]

What makes something a conspiracy theory?

They usually follow an argument like this: I observe an event X. Then I hypothesize that X implies the existence of a conspiracy. Then I present the method for proving that the conspiracy exists: it is showing that X has happened.

Works every time!

Another technique: Hypothesize the existence of a particular conspiracy. Then define the method for corroborating the hypothesis: anytime something out of the ordinary happens, it is because the conspiracy did it.

...also works every time.

An alternative to the second technique, an even cheekier one: Take some event that was a-priori improbable. Now come up with the hypothesis that it happened because a conspiracy did it, and say: "what is the probability that this would happen on its own??". Alternatively, phrase the statement in a more hard-hitting style as "only a fool would think that such an improbably event would happen on its own"

 

[Grayman]

What makes something a conspiracy theory?
If conspiracy theory meaning putting forth dogma and neglecting simple facts then religious and political institutions are most at fault.

Conspiracy Theorist beliefs can be organized within an institution like any other belief but like any other belief they can also exist independently within individuals. Religion is only successful at neglecting facts and promoting dogma because individuals are already prone to do that on their own.

 

[Analyzer]

Conspiracy Theorist beliefs can be organized within an institution like any other belief but like any other belief they can also exist independently within individuals. Religion is only successful at neglecting facts and promoting dogma because individuals are already prone to do that on their own.

So perhaps these institutions arise from individuals desire for some belief. What makes someone prone to that on their own, compared to those who are not? Like self-control.

 

[nanook]

my own research (of my father) suggests that a narcissist who is absolutely obsessed with controlling every aspect of his own life and extending control to anyone he allows into his close circle (puppet player attitude) is most likely to have paranoid psychotic delusions of conspiracies going on against him, anyone like him, his class, his profession and so on. this is because paranoia is simply a projection of improperly integrated aggression (self-agency at the impulsive stage of development) and narcism is the most radical case of being a poorly integrated individual, being emotionally identified with the impulsive state and therefore incapable of emotionally reflecting about this stage from a moderating meta perspective. and aggression is an individual trait that is conditioned by perceived necessities in upbringing. in inhuman times or in inhuman milieu aggression is key so it grows.

in contrast, the smothered son of parents with leftist/socialist/spoiling but still old fashioned (impersonal) attitude, who survives through diplomacy and giving up on much independent agency, may also have poorly integrated aggression and be prone to project it, in a personal context, where it will often take the form of envy and misantrophy, but since his aggression has never been utilized and is thus not a powerful and hyperactive element of his psyche, it can't ever really drive him to full blown paranoia.



the problem with narcissists is that they control too much, they want to control so much more than anyone can get away with controlling, they want to control other people, that they really experience the backlash on a subconscious level. everyone wants to kill them, so as to liberate himself from the influence of the narcissist. his wife, his children, certainly his son. but he is so innocent. so everyone must be utterly evil. so incredibly irrationally evil that they must be remote controlled by some unbelievably pervasive force. surely his wife is influenced to question his control, by her evil friends, who are of course just envious of his wealth. and his leftist son has been manipulated by communists to hate and disrespect his capitalist greed & creed. all of society does actually work to destroy his narcissistic all encompassing need to control all human life around himself from his selfshish-level (red/impulse level in integral jargon) thinking function so as to function within his masterplan. so he builds large walls around his property and digs a bunker underneath it and begins to hord shit for the time when THEY will come for him and his class. after they have destroyed capitalism with their disgusting attempts to make the world more friendly towards human needs and sensitivities.

 

[Grayman]

So perhaps these institutions arise from individuals desire for some belief. What makes someone prone to that on their own, compared to those who are not? Like self-control.

Children are natural believers. Skeptism is learned as you get older. I am almost convinced that skeptism on a general basis is unnatural and most who question do so not because they are skeptical in practice but because they have finally failed at preventing their warring beliefs from conflicting. Some of us in conflict learn to blind ourselves in order to prevent the destruction of our beliefs, our choices, our identity, and consequently our lives that we built upon such beliefs.
So do I have more mental control because I chose the truth or do I have less because I could not force my mind to move foward in a belief no matter how hard I tried?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

To me the most surprising thing is that conspiracy followers aren't very interested in making governments and institutions of distrust more transparent and open to the public. They project outwardly to be separate from anything that has to do with the object of their conspiracy. Effectively this always gives war and painting the enemy, rather than a clear picture or willingness to reform or learn.

They instead choose to create a hermetic society with a terminology and associations of their own, alternate reality of sorts.

Remember Edward Snowden (I know there are better examples), every conspiracy nerd should be like him, they should seek to debunk, dissect and expose the lies we are fed, instead of wasting time on what they think could be going on based on what they are fed.

Why is it that conspiracy believers don't want to become a part of government / control structures, to keep their own (unbrainwashed) eye and inform the rest of us of what's there.

Indeed, many conspiracies have come to be verified after major leaks, but to their discredit, conspiracists can produce an infinite amount of theories and some are bound to turn out to be true. Same applies to magicians and astrologers among all manner of charlatan folk.

Anyway, we need our would-be snowdens to be more suspecting of being involved in conspiracies and we also need our conspiracy nerds to become more like snowdens. Both have qualities this society needs (keeping in mind the extremes and flaws).

 

[Analyzer]

Children are natural believers. Skeptism is learned as you get older. I am almost convinced that skeptism on a general basis is unnatural and most who question do so not because they are skeptical in practice but because they have finally failed at preventing their warring beliefs from conflicting. Some of us in conflict learn to blind ourselves in order to prevent the destruction of our beliefs, our choices, our identity, and consequently our lives that we built upon such beliefs.
So do I have more mental control because I chose the truth or do I have less because I could not force my mind to move foward in a belief no matter how hard I tried?

Absolute or general skepticism just seems like laziness to me. The person who is skeptical about everything is only like that because he could not form any principles(which could be classified as beliefs), to build off of.

 

[Grayman]

Absolute or general skepticism just seems like laziness to me. The person who is skeptical about everything is only like that because he could not form any principles(which could be classified as beliefs), to build off of.

My use of 'general skepticism' was not meant to be synonymous with 'absolute skepticism'. I intended it to describe the 'willingness/ability/desire to question everything' and not necessarily 'to believe in nothing'.

Only through general skeptism can we be a better person, change who we are, and not be a product of what we were made to be by others growing up who may or may not have had the best values themselves.

 

[Intolerable]

my own research (of my father) suggests that a narcissist who is absolutely obsessed with controlling every aspect of his own life and extending control to anyone he allows into his close circle (puppet player attitude) is most likely to have paranoid psychotic delusions of conspiracies going on against him, anyone like him, his class, his profession and so on. this is because paranoia is simply a projection of improperly integrated aggression (self-agency at the impulsive stage of development) and narcism is the most radical case of being a poorly integrated individual, being emotionally identified with the impulsive state and therefore incapable of emotionally reflecting about this stage from a moderating meta perspective. and aggression is an individual trait that is conditioned by perceived necessities in upbringing. in inhuman times or in inhuman milieu aggression is key so it grows.

in contrast, the smothered son of parents with leftist/socialist/spoiling but still old fashioned (impersonal) attitude, who survives through diplomacy and giving up on much independent agency, may also have poorly integrated aggression and be prone to project it, in a personal context, where it will often take the form of envy and misantrophy, but since his aggression has never been utilized and is thus not a powerful and hyperactive element of his psyche, it can't ever really drive him to full blown paranoia.



the problem with narcissists is that they control too much, they want to control so much more than anyone can get away with controlling, they want to control other people, that they really experience the backlash on a subconscious level. everyone wants to kill them, so as to liberate himself from the influence of the narcissist. his wife, his children, certainly his son. but he is so innocent. so everyone must be utterly evil. so incredibly irrationally evil that they must be remote controlled by some unbelievably pervasive force. surely his wife is influenced to question his control, by her evil friends, who are of course just envious of his wealth. and his leftist son has been manipulated by communists to hate and disrespect his capitalist greed & creed. all of society does actually work to destroy his narcissistic all encompassing need to control all human life around himself from his selfshish-level (red/impulse level in integral jargon) thinking function so as to function within his masterplan. so he builds large walls around his property and digs a bunker underneath it and begins to hord shit for the time when THEY will come for him and his class. after they have destroyed capitalism with their disgusting attempts to make the world more friendly of human needs and sensitivities.

Interesting spin at the end there.

I guess this is what happens when you come from an alternate universe.

Having spent half a lifetime in the dystopia the liberal left wants for the developed world has given me purpose to spend the second half of my life away from it.

Selfish? I suppose. Though there is no want for control. Just stay off my property and out of my pocket and we're good.

 

[bvanevery]

I am almost convinced that skeptism on a general basis is unnatural and most who question do so not because they are skeptical in practice but because they have finally failed at preventing their warring beliefs from conflicting.

I'm not buying it. At least not within a literate, rational, scientific civilization, which has existed in various respects even from ancient times. I was good at math as a kid, and am still better at it than most of the human race, even with some career driven atrophy setting in. Sure, if I had grown up in a jungle village with no aqueducts, maybe I wouldn't have had much use or propensity for math. But in an urbanized civilization, where people are educated, I clearly demonstrated genetic analytical capability, from a very young age. I don't think it's any stretch to say, good at math = good at reasoning and logic. They're pretty similar.

Some of us are definitely born smart enough to reason about stuff. Although if we grow up in the wrong cultural context, we may reason about baloney.

 

[OmoInisa]

my own research (of my father) suggests that a narcissist who is absolutely obsessed with controlling every aspect of his own life and extending control to anyone he allows into his close circle (puppet player attitude) is most likely to have paranoid psychotic delusions of conspiracies going on against him, anyone like him, his class, his profession and so on. this is because paranoia is simply a projection of improperly integrated aggression (self-agency at the impulsive stage of development) and narcism is the most radical case of being a poorly integrated individual, being emotionally identified with the impulsive state and therefore incapable of emotionally reflecting about this stage from a moderating meta perspective. and aggression is an individual trait that is conditioned by perceived necessities in upbringing. in inhuman times or in inhuman milieu aggression is key so it grows.

in contrast, the smothered son of parents with leftist/socialist/spoiling but still old fashioned (impersonal) attitude, who survives through diplomacy and giving up on much independent agency, may also have poorly integrated aggression and be prone to project it, in a personal context, where it will often take the form of envy and misantrophy, but since his aggression has never been utilized and is thus not a powerful and hyperactive element of his psyche, it can't ever really drive him to full blown paranoia.



the problem with narcissists is that they control too much, they want to control so much more than anyone can get away with controlling, they want to control other people, that they really experience the backlash on a subconscious level. everyone wants to kill them, so as to liberate himself from the influence of the narcissist. his wife, his children, certainly his son. but he is so innocent. so everyone must be utterly evil. so incredibly irrationally evil that they must be remote controlled by some unbelievably pervasive force. surely his wife is influenced to question his control, by her evil friends, who are of course just envious of his wealth. and his leftist son has been manipulated by communists to hate and disrespect his capitalist greed & creed. all of society does actually work to destroy his narcissistic all encompassing need to control all human life around himself from his selfshish-level (red/impulse level in integral jargon) thinking function so as to function within his masterplan. so he builds large walls around his property and digs a bunker underneath it and begins to hord shit for the time when THEY will come for him and his class. after they have destroyed capitalism with their disgusting attempts to make the world more friendly towards human needs and sensitivities.

Impressive. Anyone with intimate experience with individuals with cluster-B disordered personality traits would recognise this.
The inevitably frustrated need for external control results in a degree of psychological trauma, a common outlet for which is perhaps conspiracy theorising. It's at least a relatively harmless one.

 

[Tannhauser]

I'm not buying it. At least not within a literate, rational, scientific civilization, which has existed in various respects even from ancient times. I was good at math as a kid, and am still better at it than most of the human race, even with some career driven atrophy setting in. Sure, if I had grown up in a jungle village with no aqueducts, maybe I wouldn't have had much use or propensity for math. But in an urbanized civilization, where people are educated, I clearly demonstrated genetic analytical capability, from a very young age. I don't think it's any stretch to say, good at math = good at reasoning and logic. They're pretty similar.

Some of us are definitely born smart enough to reason about stuff. Although if we grow up in the wrong cultural context, we may reason about baloney.

I think being good at reasoning implies being good at math, but not vice versa.

The problem is simply that the human brain is made for having mental shortcuts. It has an inclination to wanting to save time and energy by not learning about the world and think hard about philosophical matters all the time. That is why we often just take other people's beliefs and adopt them as our own. That way it is possible to be good at math while being a religious fanatic.

I think Grayman is right. Or at least that children have an evolutionary incentive to be impressionable when it comes to belief. After all, their parents had good enough beliefs to survive and replicate. That was valuable in prehistoric times. In the modern world, I would probably teach my kids to be skeptical about everything and to spend as much mental energy as possible on questioning things using their own mind.

 

[Tannhauser]

I wonder how many conspiracy theories we would have if the conspiracy theorists started taking risk for their wrong conclusions (aka having "skin in the game"). Endless speculation without skin in the game – it's a nice privilege (and a nice hobby).

 

[PaulMaster]

I wonder how many conspiracy theories we would have if the conspiracy theorists started taking risk for their wrong conclusions (aka having "skin in the game"). Endless speculation without skin in the game – it's a nice privilege (and a nice hobby).

What could they risk?

There are some who put their money down. The guy who made the BBC documentary about the moon landings being fake comes to mind. There have been a number of demolition experts who have made public assessments of the trade center towers coming down. That kind of stuff is reputational skin, if you will. Are you thinking they could risk even more? How so?

 

[bvanevery]

The problem is simply that the human brain is made for having mental shortcuts. It has an inclination to wanting to save time and energy by not learning about the world and think hard about philosophical matters all the time.

I don't have any a priori reason to believe this. It reflects neither my life experience, nor is it the only model I could use to describe the behavior of many other people around me. On what basis are you positing this belief about how the masses of humans think? What is your evidence?

That is why we often just take other people's beliefs and adopt them as our own.

Who? Your 'we' certainly doesn't include me. When I was a young child, I parroted things my parents said, but that stopped at some age. Maybe around 8? I'm sure there's some child psychology stuff about when children start to form their own judgment instead of just imitating.

That way it is possible to be good at math while being a religious fanatic.

Correlation is not causation. How many other possible paths through life, can make one both good at math and fervently religious? I doubt very much that Isaac Newton was a habitual imitator out of mental laziness, and he was as religious as they come.

In the modern world, I would probably teach my kids to be skeptical about everything and to spend as much mental energy as possible on questioning things using their own mind.

Which is hardly an exceptional method of child rearing, at least in various parts of the USA. It does tend to correlate with wealth, social power, and educational access though. Affluent parents go to a PTA meeting and give teachers and principals a piece of their mind. Poor parents tend to sit there and take it, because the teachers and principals are authority figures. Source of that observation was a book by Malcolm Gladwell, I think. Can't remember the exact title.

 

[Tannhauser]

I don't have any a priori reason to believe this. It reflects neither my life experience, nor is it the only model I could use to describe the behavior of many other people around me. On what basis are you positing this belief about how the masses of humans think? What is your evidence?

Religion.

Correlation is not causation. How many other possible paths through life, can make one both good at math and fervently religious? I doubt very much that Isaac Newton was a habitual imitator out of mental laziness, and he was as religious as they come.

Depends on what you mean by laziness. Newton was very stubborn in his thinking, which lead to both good and bad outcomes. He had, for example, a completely irrational faith in the "methods of the ancients", the old Greeks. While Descartes developed his powerful algebraic methods, Newton clung to geometrical reasoning, which is 1) not generalizable to more than 2 dimensions and 2) Is very tedious and impractical. It is because of that stubbornness that we use Descartes' algebraic methods and Leibniz's calculus to do calculations today. I think stubbornness and closed-mindedness like that is a form of mental laziness.

It has actually been speculated by historians that the reason Newton hated Descartes and Descartes' algebraic methods, was precisely that Descartes' thinking in many ways challenged the established dogmas of Christianity.

 

[Tannhauser]

What could they risk?

There are some who put their money down. The guy who made the BBC documentary about the moon landings being fake comes to mind. There have been a number of demolition experts who have made public assessments of the trade center towers coming down. That kind of stuff is reputational skin, if you will. Are you thinking they could risk even more? How so?

Sure, it's reputational skin, but not much more (they probably know they improve their reputation in the conspiracy circles anyway). The question is: what is the net result of being wrong in the conclusion? Usually, the theories are even constructed in a way that makes it impossible to prove them wrong at all. Now if you are testing some medicine, for example, the null hypothesis is that the medicine doesn't work, and the alternative hypothesis is that it works. If you wrongly conclude that it works, you might end up killing thousands of people. So even if you have evidence that it works, you will not accept the alternative hypothesis unless this evidence is extremely convincing (for any conspiracy theorist out there – that doesn't mean finding a bunch of examples where the medicine did work). There will be a lot of healthy skepticism in that test (hopefully). A conspiracy theorist has the privilege of jumping to the alternative hypothesis without suffering any consequences whatsoever, so he/she can do that shit all day long.

 

[bvanevery]

Religion.

The problem with that thesis, is not all religious traditions are "shortcuts" to understanding. A good number are ponderous, debate prone, and filled with esoterica. You'd actually have to think pretty hard to make any sense out of it. Now, the act of receiving simple stories from a church authority figure, sure, that's not a lot of thinking and could be called "shortcuts". But I question whether that's people's actual religious experience. For some yes, for others no.

I think stubbornness and closed-mindedness like that is a form of mental laziness.

You are complaining about degrees of intellectual effort, from the position of hindsight of a particular intellectual outcome. This pretty much destroys the thesis that mental energy was not invested. You're complaining that Newton didn't think hard enough about the things you like, not that he didn't think and obeyed some kind of primal "mental shortcut".

I just don't buy that humans are naturally stupid, which is what your "mental shortcuts" idea seems to amount to. There's probably a bell curve, and I've seen plenty of cleverness in children, who are not naturally lazy with their minds IMO. It's quite possible that stupidity is taught in a lot of instances.

It has actually been speculated by historians that the reason Newton hated Descartes and Descartes' algebraic methods, was precisely that Descartes' thinking in many ways challenged the established dogmas of Christianity.

Wouldn't shock me. But fighting about church doctrine takes mental work.

 

[Tannhauser]

bvanevery, I invite you to apply your genetic analytical capability and mathematical prowess in the Math Thread. In particular, no one has, this far, been able to solve my last super-hard problem.

In all seriousness though, it would have been cool to get some interesting problems going there.

Edit: no one has solved the problem I posted before the last one either (see post 58)

 

[bvanevery]

Unfortunately I got off the math boat sometime in college. I really only do enough math to keep the 3d triangles spinning. Which is a lot of linear algebra, not calculus.