Conspiracy theories...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally this was going to be posted in the "something that annoys you" thread, but it became something bigger - part rant, part story idea. Let me know what you think of both:

I'm curiously annoyed by conspiracy theories and the fucking derelicts who propagate and believe in them.

First off, the elitism inherent in the conspiratorial worldview. The masses are little more than dumb sheep, apart from of course the conspiracy theorists themselves who have seen The Truth(TM) that The Powers That Be are concealing. Not doing a very good job of it if they let some fat Yank publish a globally-accessible (and usually offensively luridly designed) website detailing their horrid plans, are they? Even putting that aside, the very notion that all the big things in the world happen because of some allegedly hyper-competent cabal runs counter to any serious examination of history. I bet most governments would like you to believe that they're that good, but the level and degree of government-sponsored blunders that history records militates against such a hypothesis.

Which leads me to my next point, which is that I reckon that the conspiratorial worldview is inherently pacifying. Why bother trying to enact meaningful political change when the whole world is under the thumb of the black helicopter Illuminati shape-shifting lizard aliens from another dimension? Indeed, most conspiracy theories and their proponents set themselves firmly and explicitly against progressive causes and tendencies, a product I believe of the inherently elitist nature of such worldviews.

What also pisses me off is how popular conspiracy theories seem to be, despite the at best flimsy and tenuous nature of the so-called evidence, as well as the fallacious nature of the arguments in their favour. Why is it so hard to accept the evidence of one's eyes as well as that of history, which strongly points towards our so-called leaders being largely fucking clueless, winging it and fudging things?

Could the prospect of the world being a largely disorganised and chaotic mess with large numbers of people working at cross-purposes really be that scary? So frightening in fact, that it is preferable to believe in an all-powerful Plan that merely gives the appearance that the world's "great and good" are mostly venal and clueless?

One day I'd like to write a story involving involving that popular subject of conspiracies, the Bilderberg Group. It would be a good thing I think to use the opportunity to do some serious deconstruction of common conspiracy theory tropes. I chanced across a blog post (http://thevarsity.ca/2012/03/11/paranoid-fantasies/) which was inspirational:


National Post editor and columnist Jonathan Kay identifies five key elements of conspiracy theories in his excellent survey of the contemporary conspiracist underground, Among the Truthers. These elements are 1) singularity, a single power that controls the events of history; 2) boundless evil; 3) incumbency; 4) greed; and 5) hypercompetence, the ability to manipulate people and events at will.

Using the above five points as a kind of template, my deconstructive story would look something like this:

1) The Bilderberg group is basically a social club for the ruling class. Rather than an Illuminati orgy, think G20 without the cameras.

2) They're not embodiments of boundless evil, but they do have interests antagonistic to the common person.

3) Being members of higher society they are of course, more influential than the average schmuck.

4) They're greedy, but not because they're soulless shapeshifting lizards, but because they are ordinary fallible humans operating in a social environment which tends to encourage, or at least not severely discourage, such behaviour. Capitalism demands growth, and growth under capitalism means more money in fewer hands.

5) Hypercompetence? Laughable! They screw up all the time, and there are enough members of the Bilderberg Group for factions to form and struggle, especially in times of crisis. In such times they might try stuff like a good old-fashioned coup or whatever, though.

What to do with conspiracy theorists themselves? I'd like to do more than simple mockery. Perhaps a scene where the conspiratorial assumptions of the theorist lead to disaster, certainly for the conspiracy theorists themselves and maybe as a bitter twist some negative consequences for innocent third parties.

[argeiphontes]

The examples you gave of conspiracy theories are idiotic theories, but they're not incorrect simply because it's a conspiracy. Conspiracies can and do occur in real life. For example, the Trans Pacific Partnership is technically a conspiracy because it's an agreement negotiated in secret by a powerful cabal of state executes, acting on behalf of a small number of business elites, against the interests of their people. The Watergate break-ins were a conspiracy, as was the Iran-Contra affair. We just happen to know about those.

So, I don't like using "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, because a theory should stand or fall on its own basis. I do see your point though about these wacko theories.

[Red_Banner]

The conspiracy theory I am getting rather tired of are these idiots that think Russia is going to invade the USA with firemen and EMTs.

:laugh:


They make this big fuss about "Russian troops" training with FEMA, but what they don't realise is that these Russians are from the MChS(Emergency Ministry).

They are just firemen, paramedics/EMTs, and civil defence.

They don't carry guns.
They aren't cops.
And they aren't the military.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The examples you gave of conspiracy theories are idiotic theories, but they're not incorrect simply because it's a conspiracy. Conspiracies can and do occur in real life. For example, the Trans Pacific Partnership is technically a conspiracy because it's an agreement negotiated in secret by a power cabal of state executes, against the interests of their people. The Watergate break-ins were a conspiracy, as was the Iran-Contra affair. We just happen to know about those.

The important difference being that credible evidence for those conspiracies happens to exist. Not to mention that those kind of conspiracies are considerably more petty and grubby than the kind of grand overarching Evil Plans(TM) that are reputed to be cooked up by The Man behind The Man.


So, I don't like using "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, because a theory should stand or fall on its own basis. I do see your point though about these wacko theories.

Would calling them "paranoid conspiracy theories" sit better with you?

[argeiphontes]

Would calling them "paranoid conspiracy theories" sit better with you?

That would actually be perfect. I wouldn't want to encourage pronoia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoia_%28psychology%29) and make people think the capitalist establishment isn't out to get them ;)

An interesting thing I read in a psychology book once is that the therapist was encouraged to look carefully at any story that sounded paranoid before diagnosing the person with paranoia, the rationale being that conspiracies do occur. So, that's kind of my point in regard to these theories.

But of course I see your point about the paranoid characteristics of the wacko theories, I hate them too, they distract from the real conspiracies ;)

[synthesis]

Maybe "conspiracy paranoiacs"? I feel like "paranoid conspiracy theorists" is redundant; you can acknowledge the existence of conspiracies without being what is called a "conspiracy theorist." Someone who accepts the existence of "conspiracies" as an abstraction is obviously just correct. A "conspiracy theorist" is someone who doesn't just accept that conspiracies exist, but someone who accepts multiple theories of conspiracy uncritically and/or formulates them recklessly. There has been some psychological research that has shown that people who believe in one fringe theory are much more likely to believe others unquestioningly; in my opinion, it's a symptom of the solipsistic worldview promoted by these theories.

[Aleister Granger]

Conspiracy theories are fantastic. I ran into one guy the other day
"We gotta get rid of those elites!"
Good, rad story, I agree.
"They're part of the liberal Illuminati Zionist machine to destroy freedom."
Not just liberal. They don't care about liberal ideals, they just want money and power, and if using liberalism helps em gain power off of the common man, they'll use it.
"Don't be fuckin sheep. They only care about destroying Christianity, killing off the white man, and turning the world into a communist hellhole."

One- Christianity has 2 billion followers, after centuries of science. What the fuck! Why would they go against a religion that powerful instead of using it to make themselves more powerful?
Two- What the fuck will they gain from killing white people? Most of them are white. Jews! Jews only became a race after the Nazis. They're white too. What do they have to gain?
Three- Communist hellhole? I'm pretty sure that's like saying "This water is dry" or "This red is too blue." :lol:
:lol:
:lol:
I wanted to say that at least :laugh:

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I agree with you, NoXion, about how conspiracy theories act as a pacifying measure in capitalism. I went to a meeting yesterday that got diverted by a new person that had come along to basically talk about how aids had been manufactured by scientists in the UK so that the South African government could wipe out black africans during apartheid. Everytime we tried, nicely, to get the topic onto something relevant to organising he dragged back into the discussion this stupid aids crap.

But, anyway, I read a pamphlet called How to overthrow the Illuminate (http://libcom.org/library/how-overthrow-illuminati) that might have been recommended on this forum which I found very interesting, basically deconstructing the Illuminate myth and encouraging people to take part in genuine class struggle.

"Some whites were clearly racist, and opposed to the changes of the 1960s. But others were experiencing increased oppression and exploitation as poor and working class people, and were angry about it. Just as black people in the 1960s blamed Jews for their oppression, poor white people in the 1990s blamed people of color–and the Illuminati–for their situation. In both cases, the analysis of these groups was incorrect, and it led them to fight the wrong enemy, instead of building solidarity with other poor and oppressed people. "

[Thirsty Crow]

Excellent post threre Nox.

I've had quite a few exchanges of opinion with Grand Conspiracy advocates (how about that term?), and yes it is in fact possible to make an argument that the prospect of an multi-polar ruling class which is crushing not only the working class, but also commonly competes among each other ("chaos") is in fact a bit terrifying to them.

Though, those people I interacted with usually ground this in one kind of religion or another (usually new age drivel) which is also a powerful ideological grounding for such ideas. I'd also say that, surprisingly to you perhaps, most of these people actually suffer from ruling class hegemony, either as workers, petty independent producers and so on. I believe that this can elegantly and correctly be explained by reference to the fetish character of the commodity postulated by Marx - in short, what are social relations appear to many, many people as natural properties, ergo political and economic turbulency appears as a sort of natural disaster. I don't think your idea of elitism actually does justice to the complexity of the historical formation of said ideologies.

[Aleister Granger]

It's basic psychology, this "groupthink" is. And, with all groupthink, they've made themselves impervious to being called victims of groupthink.
"We're not sheep to David Icke and Alex Jones! YOU'RE the brain-dead sheeple!"

[Thirsty Crow]

Would it be possible to claim that communists represent an example of this vicious groupthink? Or do you reserve that notion for the theories which obviously have no coherent argument and evidence behind them?

[Aleister Granger]

Would it be possible to claim that communists represent an example of this vicious groupthink? Or do you reserve that notion for the theories which obviously have no coherent argument and evidence behind them?

All humans are vulnerable to groupthink, for better or worse and communists are no different ('And if you oppose our proletarian struggle, we will ruthlessly suppress you!', the Proletarian vs Bourgeoisie divide which paints an "us vs them" air).
The conspiracy addicts and their peddlers are another case of it. They say that the super elite are conspiring to kill off mass tracts of the population, but that capitalism and Jesus can save us (one side of it at least) and are unthinking in this, not even daring to consider that blind devotion to Jesus and the exploitative nature of capitalism would naturally lead to one of these ruling elite situations they call "cabals of satanic Zionist anti-human lizardmen" or that they are sheeple to the "Exposers." They don't question what they're told.

It gets truly disturbing when you consider comments like this


What's absolutely sad about sheeple is that they actually demand "evidence". Anyone who needs evidence to prove what should be BLATANTLY FUCKING OBVIOUS deserves to get sent to a fema camp and die
Over some shit UFO video [hey, at least it's not horrible misspelled like they usually are! That's something to praise I think.]

[Thirsty Crow]

All humans are vulnerable to groupthink, for better or worse and communists are no different ('And if you oppose our proletarian struggle, we will ruthlessly suppress you!', the Proletarian vs Bourgeoisie divide which paints an "us vs them" air).
The conspiracy addicts and their peddlers are another case of it. They say that the super elite are conspiring to kill off mass tracts of the population, but that capitalism and Jesus can save us (one side of it at least) and are unthinking in this, not even daring to consider that blind devotion to Jesus and the exploitive nature of capitalism would naturally lead to one of these ruling elites they call "cabals of Satanic anti-human lizardmen"
You didn't actually address my point, about what does actually constitute this "groupthink". Your approach seems problematic since, as social beings, human thought is necessarily "groupthought" (in the sense that an isolated contemplating individual is a figment of imagination).

It would only make sense of this notion of "groupthink" relates to ideological phenomena* of justifying ideas and attitudes that simply have no evidential bases, but are grounded in faith.

*Incidentally, Mike McNair uses the notion of ideology in precisely this way, to denote systems of rationalizations and justifications for positions and attitudes which have no basis and can be clearly demonstrated as incorrect.



Over some shit UFO video [hey, at least it's not horrible misspelled like they usually are! That's something to praise I think.]
Oh hell yeah, that's what I mean when I say that this idea can be made useful (groupthink as in ideological thought, in McNair's sense of the term)

[BIXX]

Would it be possible to claim that communists represent an example of this vicious groupthink? Or do you reserve that notion for the theories which obviously have no coherent argument and evidence behind them?

I would say it depends on the communist. I would like to believe I'm not a victim of "groupthink", but it's not impossible that I may be.

[Aleister Granger]

You didn't actually address my point, about what does actually constitute this "groupthink".

Groupthink is where people conform around a central idea and refuse to acknowledge that there's any alternative or fault with it, plain and simple, dictionary definition. . As I said, we're all guilty of it. Same with communists as capitalists as fascists as anarchists as feudalists as Christians as Muslims, etc.. Without it, we'd be nowhere.
But for conspiracy peddlers, it's used to crush dissent by calling them "sheeple."
In communism, it would be "bourgeois" or "class enemy"
In capitalism, it may be "terrorist" or "anarchist"
In religion, it's "infidel" or "damned"
We, the true believers? God-favored, the freedom loving, the proud proletarians, the ones who know the TRUTH. Even in cases where it may be true, it's easily susceptible to crafting fascisthine thought. Create your argument and create an enemy, 2, 3. Create a moral or dogmatic slogan and dehumanize or de-intellectualize your opponents, 3, 4. Say we're good, your opponents are ignorant or support the real enemy, 4, 5. Demand and command absolute loyalty and use the disloyal to prove you were right, and boom, got another Kentucky Fried Holocaust/Revolution/Internet Meme Campaign on your hands. And if what you call for stumbles, just say it hasn't been done properly because your enemy did nothing but mess it up. It's those damn liberal pinkos fault we've entered a new depression! If only we didn't implement capitalist measures or instigated world revolution first! They destroyed the evidence, is all, and the truth is still out there! Everyone who opposed this religion is burning in Hell now, and if they had only converted there'd never been need for religious violence!


Whatever can be used to reshape opinions towards what you want them to think is real.

[Thirsty Crow]

All of this isn't really helpful.

For one thing, I want people to go out of their way and reshape their opinions if possible due to a discussion. In this way, yeah, I want to be a part of that, I'm not content with other working class folks believing that shape shifting lizards control everything, and neither am content with them believing that policy mistakes are the cause of the current crisis.

Because a) I think this is basically incorrect and b) because its effects are deleterious

With regard to the "no-alternative", there are alternative goals, and if working class self-emancipation from capital is the chosen goal, then I don't think there are alternatives to communism (this doesn't presuppose that "my" tendency is the Guardian of Truth or any such thing).

And the way you use the notion of the class enemy is extremely faulty. It's not the idea that's wrong and that somehow constitutes groupthink, it's the fact that capitalists are compelled to act in a certain way towards us, workers, if they want to remain capitalists.

And finally, if every single org, individual and/or group is guilty of groupthink, then the very notion loses any kind of meaning and becomes an empty invective.

[Aleister Granger]

And finally, if every single org, individual and/or group is guilty of groupthink, then the very notion loses any kind of meaning and becomes an empty invective.
Every single organization, individual, and group is guilty of groupthink, hence the term groupthink. It's not meant to be anything sinister, just a study of human (and mammal) behavior.

[adipocere]

And on the other hand, labeling something a conspiracy theory is a convenient way for people to dismiss information that threatens their world view or exposes their ignorance on a subject.
It's also an effective way of burying controversy and besmirching researchers and whistleblowers.
As far as vaccination conspiracy theories are concerned, it's not as if people are pulling this shit out of their ass (http://preventdisease.com/images13/CDC_Polio.png). Whether or not it's worth flipping out over is another matter. People do have a right to be suspicious of medicine, there have been real conspiracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) in the past.

[Aleister Granger]

^
My opinion on this matter as a whole.

[Thirsty Crow]

Every single organization, individual, and group is guilty of groupthink, hence the term groupthink. It's not meant to be anything sinister, just a study of human (and mammal) behavior.
Nope, then there is no basis for a specific concept of groupthink, which when it is used as an invective necessarily entails the existence of other forms of thought.
Usually, the term is meant to be counter-posed to critical individual thought - in a barely disguised ideological manner which rests on the notion of the unwashed and undifferentiated masses which really are what Grand Conspiracy nuts would call sheeple (meaning, they're mere bodies, their heads only good for eating - they do not think but gobble up whatever sinister, usually "collectivist", ideology someone has served them).

So, you're actually fallen, it seems, for a kind of an ideological discourse which is, to emphasize the point yet again (you ignore this), not based in a clear recognition of existing reality (i.e. evidence based).

[argeiphontes]

There's some emprical basis for a concept of groupthink or similar poor decision making processes:

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES
Vol. 73, Nos. 2/3, February/March, pp. 116–141, 1998
ARTICLE NO.
OB982758

Link to PDF: http://liquidbriefing.com/twiki/pub/Dev/RefEsser1998/alive_and_well_after_25_years.pdf

Conclusion:


CONCLUSION
What has been the contribution of groupthink research now, 25 years after the
introduction of groupthink theory? The research has not provided unambiguous
validation of groupthink theory. Rather, I think that the heuristic contribution
has been its greatest value. Groupthink theory and the results of groupthink
research have undoubtedly stimulated much thought about group decision
making. Groupthink research has led to several theoretical distinctions which
should help clarify and develop our thinking about groupthink. Turner
et al.
(1992; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994) have been the most persuasive of those who
have distinguished among various conceptions of group cohesion, arguing that
groupthink is best understood as a process by which the group members attempt
to maintain a shared positive identity as a group. McCauley (1989) distin-
guished two influence processes by which groupthink could operate: compliance
and internalization. ’t Hart (1991; Kroon
et al.,
1991) argued that groupthink
based on collective avoidance is sometimes quite different from groupthink
based on collective optimism. Tetlock et al. (1992) provided models of alternative
processes of poor group decision making which can be contrasted with group-
think. And Aldag and Fuller (1993) called attention to additional antecedents
and consequences of group decision making which are not considered in group-
think theory.
However, although groupthink research has stimulated the theoretical devel-
opments listed above, both the quantity and quality of groupthink research
leave something to be desired. Much of the research on historical cases of poor
decision making has involved analyzing and reanalyzing the same set of five
cases, and searching for the antecedents and symptoms described by Janis.
Some additional cases of groupthink have been documented. Many case analy-
ses have stimulated interesting theoretical suggestions. However, these theo-
retical ideas have not been subjected to independent tests.
Furthermore, most laboratory research has addressed the question “Can
groupthink be produced/confirmed in the laboratory?” Most discussion of labo-
ratory research seems to reflect Park’s (1990) desire that this question be
answered in each study by testing for all the elements of the complete group-
think model. This approach seems premature, given that no consensus exists
on how to appropriately operationalize some antecedents (e.g., cohesion) and
that we have not yet developed reliable measures for many of the group-
think symptoms.
I believe that it is too early to attempt to pass judgment on groupthink
theory. Much more research is needed before we can determine whether the
theory is valid, whether modifications of the theory are needed, or whether
the theory should be discarded altogether. In the meantime groupthink theory
continues to stimulate interest and its research base, though small, is growing.
In sum, groupthink research is alive and well, not because it has validated
groupthink theory, but because it has stimulated a growing set of testable ideas
about group decision making.

[synthesis]

Rereading this thread, I had a sudden realization:


Using the above five points as a kind of template, my deconstructive story would look something like this:

1) The Bilderberg group is basically a social club for the ruling class. Rather than an Illuminati orgy, think G20 without the cameras.

2) They're not embodiments of boundless evil, but they do have interests antagonistic to the common person.

3) Being members of higher society they are of course, more influential than the average schmuck.

4) They're greedy, but not because they're soulless shapeshifting lizards, but because they are ordinary fallible humans operating in a social environment which tends to encourage, or at least not severely discourage, such behaviour. Capitalism demands growth, and growth under capitalism means more money in fewer hands.

5) Hypercompetence? Laughable! They screw up all the time, and there are enough members of the Bilderberg Group for factions to form and struggle, especially in times of crisis. In such times they might try stuff like a good old-fashioned coup or whatever, though.

This is almost literally a description of the Syndicate from The X-Files. The exception being the whole "never-being-a-soulless-shapeshifting-lizard" thing, on occasion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Regarding groupthink:

While humans are social animals and thus their thinking is inevitably going to be influenced by their peers to at least some degree, I think what most people generally mean by the term is what happens when this tendency dominates at the expense of the group's actual goals. Thus the group's activities become focused on maintaining ideological orthodoxy rather than achieving its stated aims.

Example: I'm sure conspiracy theorists don't like the idea of the world being run by the Reptilians, and I would even go so far as to say that they're mostly opposed to the notion, but the paranoid conspiracy theorists' modus operandi is such that even if the premises of their worldview were true (that is, the Reptilians exist and rule the world), the conclusions they end up drawing actually hurt their cause by alienating potential allies and supporters.


And on the other hand, labeling something a conspiracy theory is a convenient way for people to dismiss information that threatens their world view or exposes their ignorance on a subject.
It's also an effective way of burying controversy and besmirching researchers and whistleblowers.

It's only "convenient" and "effective" if one is the kind of superficial idiot that gets hung up on the word "conspiracy" rather than looking at what is actually going on beyond semantics. If it wasn't obvious from my original post, then it's not the existence of conspiracies per se that I find problematic, rather the problem is with what certain popular kinds of conspiracy theory say about how certain people think the world works.

Of course, that's leaving aside the utter lack of evidence that the world is being controlled by shapeshifting Jewish Illuminati lizards from another dimension. If there was such evidence, then I would still have a problem with such conspiracy theories as they are commonly presented, because I think their presentation is inherently alienating, atomising, and disempowering.


As far as vaccination conspiracy theories are concerned, it's not as if people are pulling this shit out of their ass. Whether or not it's worth flipping out over is another matter. People do have a right to be suspicious of medicine, there have been real conspiracies in the past.

I think there is a sufficient difference of scale between covertly executed unethical experiments and the kind of thing I'm talking about to consider your examples to be red herrings in terms of "justifying" paranoid conspiracy theories. Organisations do bad things and attempt to cover them up all the time, and yet we know this because all it takes is one whistleblower to throw things out into the open. If governments and corporations can't even keep their minor peccadilloes involving few people under wraps, then what does that say of grand conspiracies involving thousands to millions of people?

[adipocere]

Daivd Icke is a red herring. Are you really getting all nasty indignant over that?
I have never met anyone ever who believes that. Nor have I ever met anyone who wore a tinfoil hat or who was paranoid about Free Masons. I suppose they are out there, but I've never met one. On the other hand, I have met many people who throw those stereotypes at practically everything that discomfits them. I've been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist and communist myself. :lol:

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

An old bloke gave me a 6 1/2 hour interview with David Icke on a home-copied dvd in the pub last night after he overheard me and my mates talking about history. Haven't worked up the courage to put it on yet :/

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I met an old guy at Food Not Bombs in Winnipeg who gave me a computer printed 100-page interview with some "shaman" friend of David Icke's. Wacky shit.

But I've heard he was a decent footballer, right?

[argeiphontes]

What if I say that a couple of people, the Koch brothers, and maybe some of their cronies, are using their fortunes to bankroll fake-grassroots organizations that push a right-libertarian agenda by manipulating public opinion through lies?

"No, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory. Put your tinfoil hat back on..."

[Thirsty Crow]

What if I say that a couple of people, the Koch brothers, and maybe some of their cronies, are using their fortunes to bankroll fake-grassroots organizations that push a right-libertarian agenda by manipulating public opinion through lies?

"No, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory. Put your tinfoil hat back on..."
Nope, and even more so if it is accompanied by some form of evidence. If it's not, than it's speculation which might be grounded in some argument. Not a Grand Conspiracy theory, definitely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Daivd Icke is a red herring. Are you really getting all nasty indignant over that?
I have never met anyone ever who believes that. Nor have I ever met anyone who wore a tinfoil hat or who was paranoid about Free Masons. I suppose they are out there, but I've never met one. On the other hand, I have met many people who throw those stereotypes at practically everything that discomfits them. I've been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist and communist myself. :lol:

Those people you've met I would consider to be among those "superficial idiots" of which I speak.

[Thirsty Crow]

Someone's never met people who believe that crap Icke espouses? I had a chance to hear a first hand account from a good friend of mine who actually did Icke's powerpoint presentation for his "show" here in Zagreb. Between a thousand and two thousands of people.

[adipocere]

Someone's never met people who believe that crap Icke espouses? I had a chance to hear a first hand account from a good friend of mine who actually did Icke's powerpoint presentation for his "show" here in Zagreb. Between a thousand and two thousands of people.

I find the idea of people carrying around dvd's a printouts, lurking in public places queitly spreading the word a little more odd then people going to hear Icke speak. I guess because I would pay $20 to hear Icke speak for the entertainment value.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i just can't get my head round how crazy it is to carry around dvds containing literally a quarter of a day of david icke and handing them to strangers in bars

[Alonso Quijano]

The first conspiracy is right. We make sure all our people are bankers. Rightnow I'm communist, such as many other in history, because those bastards won't get us our share, and we know how to take them off.

Seriously though, a group whose occupation deducted by society and usury, no change of religion lets them assimilate - like DUH you'll have both rich as hell parasites and both people who try to change it, because they sometimes feel they're hurt the most by it.

[RedWaves]

The biggest problem with conspiracy theorists in general is just they are fucking annoying. Really really annoying.

These are the people that use that term 'sheeple' and go around saying it to boost their ego like they are geniuses.


My biggest issue is they all sound like a magic trick. it's always some make believe big group that runs things.

When I was much younger I believed all this crap after dropping out of school and one day it hit me that they are all just plain stupid and looking for an easy explanation to things.


Plus, they are extremely right wing and racist. None of them bring up how the U.S. and it's capitalist Imperialism has killed so many world wide. They'll go on and on about how Stalin was a Jew or some other made up bullshit, cause you know Jews run the world, and they have to prove their racism right off the bat.


I think these people are fascist, especially the ones that go around supporting Ron fucking Paul as if he's some kind of great equalizer.

[Blake's Baby]

I won't talk to people who use the term 'sheeple' or exhort people to 'WAKE UP!' (almost always in caps). It's too annoying.

But I probably should, they need to be rescued somehow from drowning in brain-garbage.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm curiously annoyed by conspiracy theories and the fucking derelicts who propagate and believe in them.

Derelicts, lol. :lol:


First off, the elitism inherent in the conspiratorial worldview. The masses are little more than dumb sheep, apart from of course the conspiracy theorists themselves who have seen The Truth(TM) that The Powers That Be are concealing.

That's silly.


Not doing a very good job of it if they let some fat Yank publish a globally-accessible (and usually offensively luridly designed) website detailing their horrid plans, are they?

I'm not American nor am I fat and further more how dare you, lol, sizeist.


Even putting that aside, the very notion that all the big things in the world happen because of some allegedly hyper-competent cabal runs counter to any serious examination of history.

Again, pretty silly.


I bet most governments would like you to believe that they're that good, but the level and degree of government-sponsored blunders that history records militates against such a hypothesis.

So because governments have sponsored these "blunders," that means, obviously, at no point could they carry out anything, in particular say a false flag operation? What about anything for that matter? Like say, foreign aid? They couldn't pull that off, that would require to many people, etc.


Which leads me to my next point, which is that I reckon that the conspiratorial worldview is inherently pacifying.

Here we go.


Why bother trying to enact meaningful political change when the whole world is under the thumb of the black helicopter Illuminati shape-shifting lizard aliens from another dimension?

Why bother to enact meaningful political change when the government has nuclear weapons? Why bother to enact meaningful change when the government has an army, navy, marine, coast and air force at their disposal with nuclear, atomic, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons at their disposal? Why enact meaningful political change when they have holding facilities or "prisons," were they feed you gross food, watch you with guns and could kill you at some point? What the fuck does any of this have to do with enacting "meaningful political change"?


Indeed, most conspiracy theories and their proponents set themselves firmly and explicitly against progressive causes and tendencies, a product I believe of the inherently elitist nature of such worldviews.

Oh rly? Glad that caper is solved.


What also pisses me off is how popular conspiracy theories seem to be, despite the at best flimsy and tenuous nature of the so-called evidence, as well as the fallacious nature of the arguments in their favour.

Same could be said for a lot of mainstream theories. But I forgot all mainstream theories are inherently correct, apparently, like Saddam having WMDs.


Why is it so hard to accept the evidence of one's eyes as well as that of history, which strongly points towards our so-called leaders being largely fucking clueless, winging it and fudging things?

Why believe in the selective incompetence of the government? But agreed, when will people learn that the world is fucking flat. Gawl.


Could the prospect of the world being a largely disorganised and chaotic mess with large numbers of people working at cross-purposes really be that scary?

How does one negate the other? Why do have to treat the subject with some vague, abstract contraptions?


So frightening in fact, that it is preferable to believe in an all-powerful Plan that merely gives the appearance that the world's "great and good" are mostly venal and clueless?

Or the thought of the government being an instrument of negativity, deceit, treachery, mayhem and murder; that the very entity we as a society invest with authority and power over ourselves, for some stupid reason, could possible want to do us ill, exploit us, etc. is so terrifying, that it's preferable to believe the a bunch of knuckle-dragging, limp dick, thumb suckers who couldn't wipe their own ass let alone manage anything of merit. Apparently the world is just full of ass scratching buffoons whom could never hope to manage to meet in private or have any inclination of doing ill to someone, perhaps also at their profit, no, those things don't exist.

"No, a gang of muggers didn't rob you, that' silly, you really believe 3 dudes just met in private and just so happened to "conspire," to steal your purse? Really? They didn't even finish high school, I guess the world's chaotic nature is to scary for you and you need some boogeymen."


What to do with conspiracy theorists themselves?

House arrest like Galileo or better drink some poison like Socrates.

[Blake's Baby]

...
"No, a gang of muggers didn't rob you, that' silly, you really believe 3 dudes just met in private and just so happened to "conspire," to steal your purse? Really? They didn't even finish high school, I guess the world's chaotic nature is to scary for you and you need some boogeymen."...

Yes, a gang of muggers robbed you, and they met in secret to do it.

What didn't happen was that a gang of muggers met in secret and decided to rob you because they are Lizard Aliens who are really Jews who drink blood and control everything so that no-one ever finds the secret that they're trying to guard, which is that the descendents of Jesus live in France and are trying to defend the White Race from the Knights Templar who worship the Devil, who is real and wants to overthrow the American Constiution because he's a Communist who took us off the Gold Standard.

That is so not why you were mugged.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, a gang of muggers robbed you, and they met in secret to do it.

What didn't happen was that a gang of muggers met in secret and decided to rob you because they are Lizard Aliens who are really Jews who drink blood and control everything so that no-one ever finds the secret that they're trying to guard, which is that the descendents of Jesus live in France and are trying to defend the White Race from the Knights Templar who worship the Devil, who is real and wants to overthrow the American Constiution because he's a Communist who took us off the Gold Standard.

Let's just conflate every conspiracy ever in the history of history into some incoherent mess, yes.

"The world just hovers around some magic, giant ball of fire, pfffft, sure, have fun with your pointy hat Galileo."


That is so not why you were mugged.

I sorry, it's hard to keep things straight when you guys just argue against all conspiracies, ever, it gets a little confusing, lol.

[Blake's Baby]

No, we don't. The Bilderburg Group is definitely real. The World Economic Forum is real. Business are in bed with governments, and vice versa. Things are kept secret and our governments lie. Yes, that nuclear reactor is safe, no those drugs don't cause side-effects, what child abuse, we don't know what you're talking about, and the fact that I shook hands with the Chief Constable in a special way is meaningless.

What there isn't is any kind of secret world-spanning conspiracy lasting hundreds of years.

There's an open world-spanning conspiracy lasting hundreds of years, it's called capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's silly.

Of course, which is why I find it ridiculous that anyone takes such conspiracy theories seriously.


I'm not American nor am I fat and further more how dare you, lol, sizeist.

You seem to be taking this rather personally. Do you have something to profess to us?


Again, pretty silly.

But despite the sillyness of such a notion, it seems a rather popular one. I'd hazard to guess that it also isn't limited to paranoid conspiracy theorists (PCTs).


So because governments have sponsored these "blunders," that means, obviously, at no point could they carry out anything, in particular say a false flag operation?

Please point out where I said that false flag operations are impossible?


What about anything for that matter? Like say, foreign aid? They couldn't pull that off, that would require to many people, etc.

What? Quite obviously foreign aid happens. Yes, it requires significant material resources, which is why it's typically done by governments and the larger NGOs.


Why bother to enact meaningful political change when the government has nuclear weapons? Why bother to enact meaningful change when the government has an army, navy, marine, coast and air force at their disposal with nuclear, atomic, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons at their disposal? Why enact meaningful political change when they have holding facilities or "prisons," were they feed you gross food, watch you with guns and could kill you at some point? What the fuck does any of this have to do with enacting "meaningful political change"?

Do you have a point to make, or are you just ranting like an imbecile because it feels good?

All of those things you mentioned are nowhere near the levels of nigh-omnipotence that PCTs attribute to The Powers That Be™. Remember that they're supposed to be either an ancient conspiracy that has somehow held together without its agenda drifting or decaying over the millennia, a Satanic plot with the powers of the supernatural at their side, or a powerful cabal of aliens or extradimensional beings. Or some combination, even.

Kings and emperors throughout the ages have had the conceit that their grip on their Earthly domains is unshakeable and will last a thousand years, but history has again and again ruthlessly mocked and turned over such vanities, whether through natural disaster, getting knocked over by rivals, or indeed by some kind of revolution.


Same could be said for a lot of mainstream theories. But I forgot all mainstream theories are inherently correct, apparently, like Saddam having WMDs.

Misrepresenting my position as you are doing shows you either don't understand it, don't want to understand it (for some unfathomable reason), or are engaged in some mendacious rhetorical exercise. I never said that "all mainstream theories are inherently correct", that is a (wilful?) distortion on your part.

The notion that Saddam didn't have WMDs isn't even a controversial position. Which isn't surprising, considering the fuss made over "dodgy dossiers" full of cooked-up nonsense suitable for flogging to a hawkish media. You picked a shit example.


Why believe in the selective incompetence of the government? But agreed, when will people learn that the world is fucking flat. Gawl.

"Selective" is your word, not mine. I used "largely", which has entirely different connotations. So take that strawman and shove it somewhere the sun don't shine.


How does one negate the other? Why do have to treat the subject with some vague, abstract contraptions?

Look, if the world was really being run by cabal, then it would be a hell of a lot different to the mess we see at present. That is the point you seem to be avoiding.


Or the thought of the government being an instrument of negativity, deceit, treachery, mayhem and murder; that the very entity we as a society invest with authority and power over ourselves, for some stupid reason, could possible want to do us ill, exploit us, etc. is so terrifying, that it's preferable to believe the a bunch of knuckle-dragging, limp dick, thumb suckers who couldn't wipe their own ass let alone manage anything of merit. Apparently the world is just full of ass scratching buffoons whom could never hope to manage to meet in private or have any inclination of doing ill to someone, perhaps also at their profit, no, those things don't exist.

I'm not discounting the presence and influence of maliciousness in the world. I just don't see any evidence that it is consciously organised at the highest level with the kind of specific and far-reaching goals that PCTs typically attribute to it.


"No, a gang of muggers didn't rob you, that' silly, you really believe 3 dudes just met in private and just so happened to "conspire," to steal your purse? Really? They didn't even finish high school, I guess the world's chaotic nature is to scary for you and you need some boogeymen."

Are you seriously trying to compare a petty criminal act to the notion that the whole world is under the control of a single malefactor? Are you trolling?


House arrest like Galileo or better drink some poison like Socrates.

It's clear you didn't understand the question at all.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Of course, which is why I find it ridiculous that anyone takes such conspiracy theories seriously.

Cool story.


You seem to be taking this rather personally. Do you have something to profess to us?

Yes, my name is Vox, and I'm addicted to conspiracy theories.


Please point out where I said that false flag operations are impossible?

You made a blanket rant against "conspiracy theories." Da fak?


What? Quite obviously foreign aid happens. Yes, it requires significant material resources, which is why it's typically done by governments and the larger NGOs.

So, the government, the incompetent doop, you alleged, is capable of doing major tasks? I thought they couldn't count to alligator?


Do you have a point to make, or are you just ranting like an imbecile because it feels good?

I always have a point but let's go with ranting like an imbecile for 200, Alex.


All of those things you mentioned are nowhere near the levels of nigh-omnipotence that PCTs attribute to The Powers That Be™. Remember that they're supposed to be either an ancient conspiracy that has somehow held together without its agenda drifting or decaying over the millennia, a Satanic plot with the powers of the supernatural at their side, or a powerful cabal of aliens or extradimensional beings. Or some combination, even.


Is that so? Rly? Strawmen much?


Kings and emperors throughout the ages have had the conceit that their grip on their Earthly domains is unshakeable and will last a thousand years, but history has again and again ruthlessly mocked and turned over such vanities, whether through natural disaster, getting knocked over by rivals, or indeed by some kind of revolution.

So,...conspiracies and weather?


Misrepresenting my position as you are doing shows you either don't understand it, don't want to understand it (for some unfathomable reason),

Of course, us "sheeple," can't understand your "theories."


or are engaged in some mendacious rhetorical exercise.

Hmm.


I never said that "all mainstream theories are inherently correct", that is a (wilful?) distortion on your part.

Indeed but you did imply this implicitly given the fact that again, you posted a generalized diatribe against "conspiracy theories," and both you and Blake Baby have then proceeded to lump all conspiracy theories together into one giant stich blanket of bs. Have I missed something here?


The notion that Saddam didn't have WMDs isn't even a controversial position. Which isn't surprising, considering the fuss made over "dodgy dossiers" full of cooked-up nonsense suitable for flogging to a hawkish media. You picked a shit example.

I could list more, if you like?


"Selective" is your word, not mine. I used "largely", which has entirely different connotations. So take that strawman and shove it somewhere the sun don't shine.

Ouch, someone's getting a little grumpy. :c


Look, if the world was really being run by cabal, then it would be a hell of a lot different to the mess we see at present. That is the point you seem to be avoiding.

How? You and others keep saying this but I don't see how and it's a point that I've never avoided.


I'm not discounting the presence and influence of maliciousness in the world. I just don't see any evidence that it is consciously organised at the highest level with the kind of specific and far-reaching goals that PCTs typically attribute to it.

If such things occur at a "low level," why wouldn't they also occur at the the "highest level"? I don't see the logic in this.


Are you seriously trying to compare a petty criminal act to the notion that the whole world is under the control of a single malefactor?

Again, when you boys begin your rants against "conspiracy theories," you never seem to be very specific, so it's confusing, lol.


Are you trolling?

oOqJ1F44_-Y

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You made a blanket rant against "conspiracy theories." Da fak?

It was not a "blanket" rant, it was against a specific kind of conspiracy theory. Read my original post again. If you need any help with the longer words, I'll be happy to assist.


So, the government, the incompetent doop, you alleged, is capable of doing major tasks? I thought they couldn't count to alligator?

Where did I say that?


Is that so? Rly? Strawmen much?

I'm sorry, are you saying that people don't take such ideas seriously? Because you're wrong (http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/).


So,...conspiracies and weather?

Revolutions and invading armies are not conspiracies, moron. Also, weather isn't the same thing as climate or climate change, which has been implicated in the collapse of societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse#Possible_causes_of_collapse).


Of course, us "sheeple," can't understand your "theories."

No, you in particular are just being a trolling fuckwit. Remember that I don't take stock in that "sheeple" crap, if I did I wouldn't even be bothering to attempt to reason with you.


Indeed but you did imply this implicitly given the fact that again, you posted a generalized diatribe against "conspiracy theories," and both you and Blake Baby have then proceeded to lump all conspiracy theories together into one giant stich blanket of bs. Have I missed something here?

Yeah, the fact that not all conspiracies are the same. I'm not talking about the standard nasty shit that governments and corporations get up to and with varying levels of success attempt to hide from the general public, I've repeatedly mentioned precisely the breed of conspiracy theory I'm talking about.


I could list more, if you like?

Will any of them involve the machinations of global jewish bankers, freemasons, shadowy satanic cults, space aliens, or reptilians from another universe using fluoride/communism/whatever to advance their evil schemes? If not, then I fear you're out of luck.


Ouch, someone's getting a little grumpy. :c

Yes, it tends to happen when people I talk to act like trolling idiots.


How? You and others keep saying this but I don't see how and it's a point that I've never avoided.

It would be a hell of a lot better organised, for a start.

Of course, there are those who say that the apparent chaos of today's world is all part of the plan, but that pushes such conspiracy theories into the territory of unfalsifiability. Which is a bad thing, by the way (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability). At least it is if one cares at all about people being able to verify any conspiracy guff one might issue forth.


If such things occur at a "low level," why wouldn't they also occur at the the "highest level"? I don't see the logic in this.

For the same reason that molecules and galaxies don't display exactly the same kind of physical behaviour - the laws of nature vary by scale. Individuals and societies aren't the same thing.


Again, when you boys begin your rants against "conspiracy theories," you never seem to be very specific, so it's confusing, lol.

"You boys"? What has our sex got to do with it?

In any case, here is an example (http://www.truthmove.org/tmp/chart1.png) of the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Sabot Cat]

All theories that rely upon a conspiracy when there is none clearly evident are less likely to be true than competing ones on the basis of the principle of parsimony. If conspiracy theories are construed to mean, "speculation that hinges upon unproven manipulation", then they can all be sweepingly condemned.

I must say that there are some conspiracy theories that appeal to me ideologically. Did Reagan cut a deal with the Iranian government to prolong the hostage crisis so that he may assume power by sullying Carter's reputation, something that seems probable in light of the Iran-Contra affair? Did FDR have advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor and failed to act upon it, so that there would be a clear causus belli for U.S. involvement?

These are just some of the appealing ones of the top off my head, but I must dismiss them because there is no evidence that they are true. I can also sympathize with the kind of wonder that might be invoked in some of this speculation, such as the possibility of ancient extraterrestrial contact or a true matriarchal society in prehistorical Eurasia, but the feelings that a theory might invoke do not make them even slightly more tenable or substantiated by facts.

[rylasasin]

I ran into a guy on youtube who "knows" there's a plan to depopulate 80%+ of the population and keep a small slave labor population as portrayed int he book "Brave New World".

I'm not a very good debater, but even I was able to tell him why that notion was utter bullshit.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It was not a "blanket" rant, it was against a specific kind of conspiracy theory. Read my original post again.

Reading it once was sufficient, thank you, lol, but you weren't being specific is the problem here dear, like wtf, how am I supposed to know what you really meant considering you just said "ferk consperecy theries," and then combined probably like 15 conspiracy theories together and then yeah, that was about it. So, it's not against theories of conspiracies in general but rather a "specific kind of conspiracy theory" now?


If you need any help with the longer words, I'll be happy to assist.

Why do you feel the need to patronize me or attempt to make it appear as if what I am saying is stupid? Is it because I'm sheeple? Is this some kind of nerd defense mechanism? It's purrty lame, imho, I never, not once called you a name or said anything too aggro when I very easily could have, like, don't you throw your thesaurus at me when your mad, calm down, lol, for example.


Where did I say that?


I bet most governments would like you to believe that they're that good, but the level and degree of government-sponsored blunders that history records militates against such a hypothesis.

Implying that governments and associated allies are incapable of being able to orchestrate things on a grand scale as evident by their many historical "blunders." I mean, if they government can manage foreign aid or Operation Mincemeat or Operation Ajax then why can't some alternative theories about various subjects not be considered feasible?


I'm sorry, are you saying that people don't take such ideas seriously? Because you're wrong (http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/).

I never said they didn't? But I'm pretty sure you combined like 10 diff theories into one, when talking about "conspiracy theories." That's what I was saying.


Revolutions and invading armies are not conspiracies, moron.

Wtf, are you talking about? How are revolutions not conspiratorial? Are you serious? How are assassinations aka "getting knocked over by rivals," not conspiratorial? How are invasions not conspiratorial? Did Nazi Germany send Poland a text saying "yo, so guyz, we're like totally gonna take ur shit and keel yew lol :("? Or was like Lenin like "dudes, this is so totes bullshit, ur totes done, ur family is done, peace Tsarboner lol :/" to Tsar Nikolai?


Also, weather isn't the same thing as climate or climate change, which has been implicated in the collapse of societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse#Possible_causes_of_collapse).

:rolleyes:

Ok, so? And? Your point?


No, you in particular are just being a trolling fuckwit.

^See, there you going being all grumpy, cheer up little fella, it'll be oks.<3


Remember that I don't take stock in that "sheeple" crap, if I did I wouldn't even be bothering to attempt to reason with you.

Thank you, oh Great One, for putting up with me, a sheeperson and my stubborn ignorance and attempting to reason with me, out of your mysterious sense of mercy.


Yeah, the fact that not all conspiracies are the same.

Then why do you rail against them as if they are the same and combine them to appear as such?


I'm not talking about the standard nasty shit that governments and corporations get up to and with varying levels of success attempt to hide from the general public, I've repeatedly mentioned precisely the breed of conspiracy theory I'm talking about.

Again, you weren't being very specific so any confusion on my part is prettty understandable.


Will any of them involve the machinations of global jewish bankers, freemasons, shadowy satanic cults, space aliens, or reptilians from another universe using fluoride/communism/whatever to advance their evil schemes? If not, then I fear you're out of luck.


I see.


Yes, it tends to happen when people I talk to act like trolling idiots.

Oh, I see, that's rather odd, I don't get so emotive whilst online, must be taxing, I'm sure but still, hmm, pretty strange if you ask me and none to polite mind you.

It would be a hell of a lot better organised, for a start.


Of course, there are those who say that the apparent chaos of today's world is all part of the plan, but that pushes such conspiracy theories into the territory of unfalsifiability. Which is a bad thing, by the way (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability). At least it is if one cares at all about people being able to verify any conspiracy guff one might issue forth.


OK, so?


For the same reason that molecules and galaxies don't display exactly the same kind of physical behaviour - the laws of nature vary by scale. Individuals and societies aren't the same thing.


Society is a quasi-cohesive body of individuals, human primates like you and me, said individuals whom are at the helm of power and would have the capabilities to do X for the ultimate benefit of whomever(s) or the country, is not that outrageous of an idea. You're example is kind of like comparing apples and oranges.


"You boys"? What has our sex got to do with it?

Turn of phrase, calm down.


In any case, here is an example (http://www.truthmove.org/tmp/chart1.png) of the kind of thing I'm talking about.

That's pretty cray, not gonna lie.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Wtf, are you talking about? How are revolutions not conspiratorial? Are you serious? How are assassinations aka "getting knocked over by rivals," not conspiratorial? How are invasions not conspiratorial? Did Nazi Germany send Poland a text saying "yo, so guyz, we're like totally gonna take ur shit and keel yew lol :("? Or was like Lenin like "dudes, this is so totes bullshit, ur totes done, ur family is done, peace Tsarboner lol :/" to Tsar Nikolai?
Lenin wasn't even in Russia when the Pulitov Soviet formed in Petrograd. Revolution isn't something that can be imposed on the working class by individuals. I think maybe you're mistaking 'political coup' with 'revolution'. Assassinations can be conspiratorial which is precisely why so many Marxists and Anarchists warn against it as a tactic, because it's not a mass movement seeking justice but individuals seeking justice on behalf of the masses.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Lenin wasn't even in Russia when the Pulitov Soviet formed in Petrograd. Revolution isn't something that can be imposed on the working class by individuals. I think maybe you're mistaking 'political coup' with 'revolution'.

Oh good lord. :rolleyes:

I fully realize what a revolution entails or '"is," thank you. No I did not mean to imply Lenin and his totes real text were the revolution.


Assassinations can be conspiratorial which is precisely why so many Marxists and Anarchists warn against it as a tactic, because it's not a mass movement seeking justice but individuals seeking justice on behalf of the masses.

Can be? Can you name me an assassination that wasn't conspiratorial? Also, not all Anarchists are against assassinations, I for one, am not. You and others miss the real point of such exercises.

[RedWaves]

I used to heavy into conspiracy theories when I first dropped out of school and went through my low self esteem years, and the more I dug into it the more I thought it was bullshit.


The U.S. can't even kill Fidel Castro 90 miles off the coast of Florida for the past 60 years, how the hell could they pull off 9/11?

The White House couldn't even keep a blowjob secret, you just know someone would have slipped on that.



There is a few conspiracies you never hear about that I do think are true. One is the Malcolm X one. For some reason I truly do believe the FBI worked with the Nation of Islam to have him knocked off.


but as far as it goes, no I don't believe no bullshit about Aliens or Jews or whatever ruling the world cause it's down right hilarious.

The freemason ones used to really rub me the wrong way years ago cause I had family members dating back to WWI that were into freemasonry and these people were not Jewish or anywhere close to being bad people. As a matter of fact, there was a Masonic Lodge in my home town growing up and I couldn't believe these idiots when they tried to connect it to Sandy Hook cause there was a Lodge there too.
The Masons where I grew up actually built a bunch of churches and were responsible for the construction and funding. They were not looked at as Satanist, they did a lot of really nice things for the community and people still think high of them today even though most of them have died of old age.


When you really take it into consideration with most conspiracy theories they sound like bad jokes. I can see the reason in not believing the Moon Landing since it seemed impossible at the time, but all this crap about staging terrorist attacks and the U.S. killing it's own people, even though they have a really good history with the CIA creating these terrorist units and allowing them to go out of control, makes you really think twice about the thing.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

This guy in my history class told everyone that the UN was conspiring to take over the world. He said that it was a trade treaty that allowed President Obama to impose martial law and censor the internet on a whim. He also said that the UN would be able to censor the internet--he couldn't really decide whether or not it was Obama or the UN doing the censoring.

My professor then went on to talk about the "slave power" conspiracy theory (the Northern belief that Southern plantation owners were secretly conspiring to enslave everyone. She explained that the theory was basically crazy. Then she gave the UN guy a funny look.

Some people are beyond reason.:rolleyes:

[goalkeeper]

I think the popularity of conspiratorial politics in the last few years can be seen as related to the collapse of (or more precisely the popularity of) political movements with coherent ideologies that could explain (albeit often wrongly) or provide a prism through which to view events in the world.

[servusmoderni]

My favorite one is the one where Obama's a muslim and a communist. haha. That's probably the funniest one. :laugh:

[bcbm]

shame the nwo drone strike killed paul walker

[the debater]

The U.S. can't even kill Fidel Castro 90 miles off the coast of Florida for the past 60 years, how the hell could they pull off 9/11?


Ah, but it wasn't the U.S. per se, but rather, powerful international bankers and other such powerful folks who were more powerful than the U.S. president and Congress.

Anyways, I guess with conspiracy theories, I don't know. I find them interesting, but not necessarily trustworthy. I guess the way I look at it, while I'm not necessarily a hard-core conspiracy theorist, that doesn't mean that I automatically trust the mainstream media 100% of the time, and it doesn't mean that I'm not suspicious of our leaders and their motives and agendas they have. I hope I sounded like a boss, and reasonable.

[Hexen]

Of course the main basis of conspiracy theories is that the proletariat and petite-bourgeois and the other lower classes (especially in the US) are told that they 'control the government and it serves them' but when they notice that the government acts against them (because it's rather the capitalists that controls it and it serves them hence our system "capitalism") instead of looking at the system itself that causes it, they instead suspect that there is something "sinister" going on in the government that supposedly serves them so they turn to conspiracy theories to fill that void due to their irrational anger and insecurities which ultimately conspiracy theories are just a tactic to shift the lower classes attention away from the system itself that causes it towards a strawman so they can have the proletariat live in fear and pacified to keep their system going.

[RedWaves]

Ah, but it wasn't the U.S. per se, but rather, powerful international bankers and other such powerful folks who were more powerful than the U.S. president and Congress.

Anyways, I guess with conspiracy theories, I don't know. I find them interesting, but not necessarily trustworthy. I guess the way I look at it, while I'm not necessarily a hard-core conspiracy theorist, that doesn't mean that I automatically trust the mainstream media 100% of the time, and it doesn't mean that I'm not suspicious of our leaders and their motives and agendas they have. I hope I sounded like a boss, and reasonable.


That's the thing, it's always da gubahmen and some Jewish bankers or whatever.


Conspiracy theorists are looking for the easy way out. This is what dialectics is for, except dialectics cannot be explained in a short 10 minute Youtube video with spooky music. They want a scapegoat and an easy answer to why the world is so screwed up. Weather it be the Illuminati, or the Jews, or Barack Obama, or Reptilians, it's always something to easily point the finger at and blame for everything.



Fact is, it's not the government really oppressing you. It's the bourgeoisie. That's where the idiots fail to grasp at reality while they hang on Alex Jones' every word or David Icke. Two cult leaders that want you to worship the ground they walk upon cause they know "the truth" and everyone else is blind, stupid, and don't know any better.


From my own experiences, the conspiracy crowd is the worst thing I've ever encountered on the internet. For these "enlightened" people, they act like a bunch of fucking douche bags. Just pull up an Alex Jones video and look at how they treat each other arguing and bickering. If I make one comment disagreeing with them from everywhere I've went, I constantly get death threats and spam mail about how I'm an idiot, then they blame you of being an agent provocateur (this is classic on the Alex Jones fanside), or a jew, or Illuminati or whatever. They ban you from their forums as quick as they can for disagreeing with them but then they want to complain how their videos supposedly are censored because it's da gubahmen tryin' ta control yew or some other dumb thing.


All that conspiracy crap about Freemasons and Jews is pathetic too. I've never had problems with those secret societies that they always scream and shout about. They aren't the ones that load me down with spam messages and death threats when I disagree with them on any site I go to. They are far more secretive than the cults of Alex Jones and David Icke.
I take it most of them don't do much research (well that is apparent with how they constantly scapegoat Marxism), in a lot of conspiracy theories it goes solely based on speculation and idea of thought. It's like those retarded conspiracy and alien related shows on the History channel with people saying "it's gotta be true!" even though their 'proof' is based solely on their thoughts and beliefs, when it could be entirely wrong.

It's hard to even tell a conspiracy theorist they are wrong cause most of them have this arrogant aura around them that they think they are better than everyone else cause they know "the truth" and when you try to tell them otherwise, you are "brainwashed' and what not, and they are the only one on earth that knows what is going on. That's the problem with most of the ones that follow Alex Jones around and worship him. I take it they have low self esteem and need something to build themselves up on.

I used to fall for that same crap when I first dropped out of school and had low self esteem. It's a phase we all go through when you're young and naive, it's something you pretty much grow out of over time, when you realize it's all bullshit preying on people's paranoia and fear to make money. Look at all the big conspiracy theorists in the mainstream and they are filthy rich. If what they say is true, then how the hell are they still alive?
It's just common sense, if everything Alex Jones says is true he would be fucking dead, but instead he's rich as hell from selling his DVD's and books and getting gullible people to listen to his radio show for 3 hours a day while he scares the living shit out of them, and never has a solution to the problem.



The government is not the ones oppressing me. When the government does something anyway it goes for all people. That's different than how the bourgeoisie work. The conspiracy theories want you to blame the government for everything and pretty much indoctrinate you with this crap. Da gubahmen wants ta take mah gun, da gubahmen took mah baby, da gubahmen is poisoining da water, but in all reality this isn't what is happening.

In the end it's all a joke preying on people's paranoia and profiting from it.