I think I've cracked the psychological profile on the anti-conspiracy crowd.

To put it quite simply, they observe reality with a binary frame of reference.

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

You can observe this phenomena when you ask them about known and exposed historical conspiracies. In their opinion, the existence of said conspiracies does not support the existence of unknown conspiracies.

They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to contemplate the infinite possibilities between the two states.

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

An example:

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Edit: In predictable fashion, the anti-conspiracy crowd, who clearly self identify with this binary label are here to defend their position (what a surprise!) and further illustrate my point with their usual tactics: Misrepresenation of the argument, gross exaggerations and their personal favorite, Mockery.

This is an excellent comment, however, I disagree with your last sentence. Based on my own personal experience with being 'awakened' and coming to terms with the reality of our world, I do not believe it is a lack of intellectual capacity preventing otherwise logically minded persons from entertaining conspiracies. I believe it is a lack of emotional capacity. Using 9/11 as an example, it wasn't until I was ready, on an emotional and spiritual level, to accept the meaning of this conspiracy that I was finally able to acknowledge the logic of it. To use a cliche, when I 'took the red pill', it didn't allow me to see the world any differently, it allowed me to overcome my fear.

tl;dr: People aren't stupid, they're scared.

I honestly owe my awakening to my marijuana habit. It sounds dumb, and it is, but I believe that if marijuana were legal everywhere tomorrow the country would question a lot more of the narrative its been spoon-fed.

Right. I was always a little bit cynical as a kid, but I wholeheartedly believed that the government generally had our best interests at heart - even if there were mistakes made, and a bit of corruption - and I didn't disagree with the idea that "the policeman is your friend." Then I started smoking weed and tripping. "Wait - Everything they said about these drugs was wrong! What else are they lying about?" Oh, that's a very deep rabbit hole...

What if in the future there's a portion of society who frequently trips and uses marijuana that has accelerated evolution and starts outpacing the rest of society due to their ability to understand abstract concepts and the true nature of reality? These insights integrated with technology and combined with their ability to "see outside the box" would cause them to break away and form a super culture similar to the stories of Atlantis. I'll stop fantasizing now :(

Except there already is a large portion of society that frequently trips and uses marijuana and the world is the same.

If our best minds were able to use psychedelics in a legal and uninhibited fashion things would change. Look at all the discoveries and renowned people that were affected by them. Steve Jobs, Kary Mullis and the development of the PCR technique, Francis Crick and the double helix, Bill Gates, and people like Terrence Mckenna are good examples. I’m not talking about a bunch of teenagers smoking pot or taking mushrooms at a rock concert and subsequently developing highly advanced technology. I’m talking about intelligent people, free to explore their minds and expand their consciousness. We had a glimpse of what this might be like in the 60’s and it was squashed before it could take off. You can’t have everyone running around with big ideas like that. They become a threat.

Ditto. I feel like it's one of the few things that they don't realize weed legalization is one of the few things we've got going for us in terms of waking up.

I know what you mean. When I smoke weed, my "bullshit-detect-o-meter" is always on full alert. I don't know why, but there's something about it that lets me see past the deceptions and nonsense. It's like a THC-induced polygraph machine.

But is it the marijuana that awakened you or the fact that you chose not to follow all the rules?

Possession of marijuana is a real crime that can send you to prison, the loving, benevolent government now sees you as an enemy, so maybe you opened your mind to seeing the government as an enemy.

Or just some good weed.

Meh. If a law is unjust, one must disobey.

me too bro

I was told about conspiracies before I started to smoke pot. I always laughed and mocked my friend who did smoke pot. I also mocked him about smoking pot because i was a brainwashed idiot. "america is the best, the government loves us, the canadian government loves me, they want the best for us, lets make marijuana illegal" just some of the shit i use to think. I tried marijuana one day, and EVER since that day, my mind has opened up to the real world. Me and my friend always talk about politics, the world, how it runs, what is the matter with it. And although we are not political scientists, or politicians, or economists, we understand the intensity of the situation us as a human race is in. We don't beat around the bush like politics do, we don't talk about unnecessary bullshit, we talk about WhAT IS WRONG, instead of "this and that leads to this and thats why we must do this and that" Pot opened my third eye.

Well spoken sir, i think this difference is what alot of people miss. You cant assume your audience is stupid and maintain enough respect to continue a functional conversation.

Mankind, when taken as a whole, is stupid.

If we were not, then there wouldn't be so many potential Darwin Award vids available and I would get to laugh so much.

I promote stupidity in the general population, sheep are easier to control when the time comes.

Pretty sure you're overlooking base rates here. Tell me how many 'vids' you're talking about and let's divide that by just the 7 billion people that are here. The numbers are astronomically low.

The enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

Two words.

Comet, harpoon.

Your argument is invalid.

Excellent point re: 9/11.

I have a few buddies who I can at least get to agree that what the government told us happened probably didn't happen, or if anything, it's not the whole truth.

I used to see this as a slight victory - because I wanted them to see the big picture, and they aren't ready. It took me and I'm assuming yourself years, and I can't deny them that.

In those years it took awhile to fully realize the implications of it being an Inside Job. It was an attack, alright, and an overt action of war, I would argue. But it wasn't al-Qaeda, and the majority of the American public are not ready to compute that. And that's how good of a psyop 9/11 was.

Well said on both comments! It reminded me of a time I argued with a buddy who dared question 9/11. Back then I was very convinced of the official conspiracy.

For me personally it was this video that woke me up.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has ever successfully fell back asleep after taking the pill?. I'm pretty sure fear is the only way this could happen. I cant imagine anyone "thinking" themselves back into the official story narrative.

So I'm sure there's a hundred posts a day on here about this, and feel free to ignore me, but I just I feel like I'm missing something. I know the government is capable of nearly anything it wants to do, and that it doesn't care about restraints put on it by law or by itself, because there is no oversight. I know they spy on everyone, I know they have no time for human rights, I know they topple governments and when they do certain businesses tend to get very wealthy. I know they kill random people all around the world, and I know they try to hide all of this from us.

I have no trust for the government, and am frankly more afraid of what they do/can do than I am of any terrorist or foreign state. I just can't seem to see 9/11 as anything other than people furious with our decades of blowing up their homes, toppling their governments, and keeping them in poverty. The way the Patriot act was passed? Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA was involved in the anthrax scare, and every level of government was involved in whipping the public up into a frenzy. I'm certain they made sure to benefit from 9/11, but I just don't see it as being something they did.

Would you or could you tell me the specific thing that made you come to believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? In that video what element was so profound it changed your thinking?

Thanks!

For me it was the realization that the twin towers couldn't have fallen the way they did without the help of some kind of explosive. If they had of fell sideways on the path of least resistance that might have been probable but they fell neatly into their own footprint.

Newtons third laws states "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body".

Richard Gage used an interesting analogy during his ama about this subject. Imagine suspending a bowling ball above your head and letting go. The ball will certainly do some damage but eventually our bodies will absorb the energy and the ball will fall on the path of least resistance. Keep in mind the bowling ball has an higher average weight and density then a human body. This fact alone warrants a new investigation imo.

That would be the specific thing that changed my mind. That vid was just the beginning. Building 7 is even crazier because of the fact it fell at freefall speed. There's a lot more weird shit that happened. Check out September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor for good info on the inconsistencies.

This. When I first saw the buildings collapse when I was in high school I always thought something wasn't right about it. It just seemed too perfectly hollywood the way they dropped straight down. I chalked it up to my emotions being out of control and never witnessing an attack like this to compare it to.

It wasn't until about a year later around the anniversary I was emotionally desensitized enough to rewatch the building collapses closely including building 7. I knew right away that these were controlled demolitions before I had even gotten wind of the conspiracy theories.

FFw to a couple years ago I drunkenly told my grandpa about the conspiracy thinking it would break his feeble brain and he responds casually that he knew as soon as the first building started falling on tv. This coming from a man who refuses to use the internet!

My father said the same thing as your grandpa a few months ago. I was like "Holy Shit, you know wtf you're talking about!"

couldn't have fallen

These kinds of phrases are why I tend to have trouble accepting the 'unofficial' story. There have been lots of demonstrations as to how they could have fallen that way, even without explosives. It revolves around the fact that the burning jet fuel weakened, not melted, but weakened the supports of the building. When this happens the outside of the building falls inwards as the weight pushing in on the supports finally bends the weakened metal. There have actually been some videos and simulations on the subject, though I can't seem to find em right now.

I'm not sure what the bowling ball analogy is trying to demonstrate. The impact didn't bring down the towers, it was the intense heat weakening the supports of the towers. Least resistance was for the top floors to fall 'in' towards the center of the building, which caused a continual collapse.

The thing that set me hard against most of the conspiracies, when I was 15 in high school we watched a documentary on the subject in class. Once it got as far as to say that the fuel couldn't "melt" the supports, because the boiling point of steel is higher than the boiling point of "hydro-carbons" not this specific fuel, but hydro-carbons in general. And it got the boiling point of hydro-carbons by adding the boiling point of hydrogen to the boiling point of carbon, which is obviously not how chemistry works. At all. That's when I decided this particular theory was probably reaching a bit.

Fair enough, The bowling ball analogy is to visualize why newtons third law applies to the towers. Meaning that when the the top section was weakened by the fires and started in a downward motion the weight and mass of the lower section applies equal force in the opposite direction. So no it couldn't happen the way it did without something removing the resistance.

Tell a demolitions expert to bring down a skyscraper by cracking a few floors in the middle and let gravity do the rest and he'd laugh at us.

There hasn't been a case before where this happened before 9/11 where coincidentally it happened three times.

There have been lots of demonstrations as to how they could have fallen that way.

I'm sorry but I must correct you. There has not been a single scientifically verifiable explanation as to what that mechanism was the made it possible for the entire building to suffer a systemic collapse.

Plenty has been written (and disputed) about the onset of collapse.

But after the initial collapse, the best anyone has ever put forth is..."gravity."

This documentary talks about the mechanism of collapse at length. Basically it got very hot, the floors collapsed into each other, the way the building was built caused the supports to twist and bend internally under its own weight and ultimately collapse. Basically it's the specific design of the WTC that was its undoing.

You seem well behind the curve. Pancake theory has been unanimously scraped due to its failure to explain the total destruction of the core columns.

Catch up on the debate before you enter into it.

These coincidences are quite intriguing.

Hijacker Passport found instantly? http://youtu.be/RtCvWG-4OeA

People caught setting up to film the attacks and then celebrating once they're hit? Promptly arrested with box cutters in their possession and fail lie detector tests from the FBI.

Video: http://youtu.be/UMkX5uemLyk

Article: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885

War Games on 9/11 by NORAD which confused the real attacks for a drill in the eyes of the FAA etc.

"I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise." - Major James Fox, Northeast Air Defense Sector, September 11, 2001

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-03-22/real-world-or-exercise-did-us-military-mistake-911-attacks-training-scenario

People= Israeli citizens who were then extradited back to their country and appeared on talk shows as celebrities once they got back.. They actually are the second known witnesses to capture the first tower hit on tape but the FBI has not released the footage nor the dozens of angles on the Pentagon hit from local businesses and the Pentagon's own security cams.

They were Israeli? Wow, what a coincidence.

They are certainly very interesting! I really appreciate that you bold coincidences, and stress that word. Because that puts matters more in terms of "think about this" than it does "this is the answer and this is the entire chain of events that made this happen." I can't deny those coincidences, it's very unlikely for the passport to have ended up on the sidewalk. It's theoretically possible, very unlikely, and extremely convenient that it happened.

That filming was very interesting, I actually haven't heard about that before, thank you for sharing. I was also really impressed by the article like, it was actually well written, covered the issue, provided information, and didn't politicize it. Is this what journalism was back then? I was 11 at the time and I remember news changing the way it was presented around 2003, and then just continued diving head-first into absolute drivel.

The war-games coincidence is also a very intriguing one, that one has been among the most interesting for me. War games are very normal, though not usually on this scale, but that it happened to be on the only day it could have mattered was definitely very interesting. A coincidence for sure, but an interesting one.

Some of the coincidences that occurred are extremely alarming.

Did you know Dick Cheney was given CIPRO (anthrax antidote) on 9/11 -- a week before the anthrax attacks occurred? Another interesting coincidence!

Video: http://youtu.be/Ben17NripYU

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/aponline201158_000.htm

I know a person who's aware that things "outside the matrix" exist so to speak. For instance, she knows that there is a lot of weirdness with the official story of 9/11, but she makes a conscious choice to not investigate it further.

She says it's just easier and that she sleeps more soundly at night not knowing. I can't relate to this mindset in any way personally, I'm way too curious and inquisitive, but I think that it's a mindset that's fairly prevalent in the world. It's also the mindset that we're all conditioned to have in the US, which is probably a contributing factor as well.

I'm really starting to believe in the analogy from the Matrix. People can only been shown the door. They have to make the choice themselves to walk through it. Fear holds many of us back. I think this is why it's hard to change peoples minds.

People aren't stupid, they're scared.

This!

Hence the term, "sheep."

They trust their shepherd to protect them from the wolves.

Whenever something riot-ey or scary happens, you hear it come out, "this is why we need government!" and they all huddle around and agree. Because many are waking up to the horrors, but they still are clinging to the liferaft of "necessary evil".

We need an evil government.... to protect us from evil. Logic fail. If people are innately evil, then we should not have government, because the most evil will rise to the top. If people are innately good, then we do not need government, because people generally will cooperate peacefully with one another. The reality is not binary, as the original poster eloquently pointed out, but still the conclusion is that we do not need government because it will always become corrupted by the worst among us.

This is why I don't vote...well said.

...the conclusion is that we do not need government because it will always become corrupted by the worst among us.

While it's true that people don't need 'government' in order to cooperate peacefully, we certainly need order and organization and leadership. Afterall, cooperation requires consensus, and persons of authority to carry out the will of those in agreement. Otherwise, a dictatorship or monarchy provides the above functions. This has been true since the dawn of time, on every scale of human organization and cooperation, beginning with the family, clan, village, tribe, and up. Final decisions and agreements have to be made by someone, and if you have a voice and a choice and choose not to participate, then someone else will do it for you. Theoretically, if everyone suddenly and simultaneously chose to stop participating in political life, then there would literally be no vehicle for concensus or cooperation above the most personal level, and the result would be social chaos.

In other words, you may not like the (corrupt) government you have, but government is necessary for cooperation. What kind of government you get depends on the level of participation.

On a final note...semantically speaking, the word 'government' (steerer / navigator / pilot / leader) may not be the best choice of words. It might make a difference if people started saying, eg, 'The US democracy / republic is archaic, corrupt and dysfunctional because only 12% of people under age 30 regularly participate.'

ment comes from the latin "mente" or "mentum" meaning mind.

govern is "to control" or "to rule over"

Put the two together and you have "control over the mind".

I motion that henceforth we banish the word 'government' to some barren, broken bone Bikini atoll to languish and die a slow death from dehydration along with the rest of history's useless words, eg, like 'savings'. From now on, we shall call it what it truly is...an abomination.

How am I doing? Anybody wanna second this motion?

I'm with you. We can exile "credit", "social justice", and "public relations" too.

Bikini atoll sounds pretty good actually. I could use some bikini ocular action.

Maybe one of them radiated atolls like Johnson Atoll :)

I have to go to work so I can't spend any time on this but I would suggest you read David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom because the alternative to governance is actually not chaos and do what thous wilt shall be the whole of the law. The vehicle for consensus and cooperation (which government has never been about or represented, btw) would be the free market (truly free) and would seemingly function in a much greater, more representative and free way than any government is willing or able to. Also check out the guys over at /r/Anarcho_Capitalism they are very smart and will provide everything you need to get started on your journey if this is something you are interested in researching

Thanks for the links. I'm already quite familiar with Anarchism. Rings true on paper. Nevertheless, it ain't ever gonna happen without another global militant meltdown or else some catastrophic natural disaster that wipes out all of humanity except one Anarchist community who starts the whole human experiment from scratch. There are literally thousands of different languages and hundreds of nationalities and millions of religions and billions of opinions. In any case, there will be war. It's the natural way, because cooperation is ultimately driven by fear of death. Find a way to defeat death, and you might have Anarchism.

I think the opportunity we have with the internet to educate people everywhere who are increasingly sick of state actions about the possibilities of anarchism does provide hope, and it's an opportunity to spread ideas that normally did not get spread through the social channels of the past. There's so much going on in anarchism, like with bitcoin, free state project, etc etc, but I agree, it will not be soon to occur unfortunately barring some black swan event

Trust me there are a lot of stupid people out there. A lot may come down to fear, but I genuinely think for every scared person there is also a stupid person. It's more of a 50-50 imo.

I appreciate your reply.

I am glad you found the truth to be inescapable, as do I.

I think your disagreement is simply a matter of semantics.

I agree completely that the emotional capacity of our person governs our rational thought.

However it is my position that a true intellectual is capable of separating themselves emotionally from rational thought to a greater degree than a none intellectual.

Again, simply a matter of interpretation.

Hooray for perspective and empathy! I can completely relate, as there are times it would be much easier to remain ignorant and sedated instead of descending deep into the rabbit hole.

I wouldn't even state that it's a capacity problem. While I do agree that people are scared. They don't want to go through the logical steps that bring them to a horrifying truth, so they choose not to, and to keep themselves in their happy bubble, they belittle those that do.

I disagree with that last bit. I can agree some are just scared to say anything. However, sooo many people walking around that are dumb as a rock.

Despair is not palatable. . . .

Let's start a thing!

Whenever you see a fearporn post or a discussion based on the premise of fear, just post:

/r/scaredthinking

Spot on about the emotional connection. I've pointed out facts to the most logical of my friends, who can concede that there is something not right about 9/11, but they can never accept that it was potentially organised by the west and allies thereof. Definitely an emotional abstract, not intellectual.

Holy fucking shit, you nailed it. I feel like a huge mental burden has been uplifted. The path of least resistance is to simple dismiss any new evidence that's contrary to their current paradigm.

What do you believe the meaning to 9/11 is though? Not the symbolism but rather the purpose.

They have a term for what you are describing, cognitive dissonance. It's a well understood and prevalent phenomenon, as you have just pointed out.

That's not just anti-conspiracy, that's become people in general. We've lost the "look outside of the box" view. If science can't explain it 100% then it must not be true. Pretty sad really, especially when a lot of scientists are bought out.

They've been trained by TV.

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

this is great because the official story almost always requires us to believe that people are evil for the sake of being evil, which almost never happens outside of the movies.

They hate us for our freedoms, the lone nut, if we don't fight them over there we'll fight them over here... you can't see the world with any nuance if you believe in these types of things.

See I would use everything you just said in the first paragraph to describe the 'pro-conspiracy' crowds. Now obviously not everyone believes the same thing but if you look on here every single time theres some sort of shooting or attack "it's a false flag", anyone who disagrees is a 'shill', I'd say thats a very black or white way of viewing the world. The 'Illuminati' or world leaders or whoever want to enslave humans throw them in FEMA camps and reduce population, that's a very good/bad view of the world.

You've just demonstrated my point.

It's just a little harmless NSA data intrusion or it's full blown FEMA slave camp detention centers.

The grey escapes you.

Not at all, believe me I'm under no illusion that the government is completely morally and ethically sound. I'm against data collection, intrusion and spying on citizens, my point however is especially on this sub when anything violent that involves civilian casualties happens the majority of people here jump up and say it's a false flag attack. That's having a very black and white view of the world and ignoring the shades of gray that hey there are messed up individuals in the world that do messed up things. Now again I'm talking generally about this sub I don't know your personal beliefs in conspiracy theories but you have to put the blinders on to not recognise there are people in this sub that are as you described 'anti-conspiracy' people just in the opposite way.

Well I certainly don't wish to generalize or to paint your position.

Is it my belief that false flags have been manufactured to sway public opinion? Unequivocally.

Do I believe that every single thing that happens is orchestrated? No.

I believe in letting the evidence and my own intellect be my guide.

Well I certainly don't wish to generalize or to paint your position.

...

Wasn't that the point of your entire fucking post to begin with?

Sheesh.

I was generalizing about the thinking of a particularly sizeable and persistent group of people.

I am not attempting to generalize the opinions of individuals.

A group is made up of individuals

If you speak about the thinking of a group, you are speaking about them as individuals

Especially when that group is one you've created to describe a large amount of individuals who do not otherwise associate with each other

That is not practicing what you preach, it is incredibly hypocritical

Sorry bud, grouping people based on commonalities is a very practical and useful skill. It's called stereotyping. You would literally not be able to get through the day without using it.

Stereotyping is a form of generalizing, "bud."

So you DO want to generalize individuals, but you don't wanna be called on it when you make massive sweeping and incredibly overreaching statements about a group that you half personally identified and quantified, rather than themselves.

Yes, you do want to say what individuals think. That's what happens when you literally declare how they think.

Hey, speaking of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance? That literally has nothing to do with it.

You're a moron if you can't see the distinct difference between making generalizations about an individual and their individual opinions and making broader generalizations about the mentality of group thinking.

And you're calling me a hypocrite? I mean, that is literally what you and the bottom feeders at /r/conspiratard do all day long.

So don't come in here with propriety, telling me what I can and can't say with regards to groups and individuals.

Bud.

I ain't saying what you can and can't say

I think it's simply worth pointing out you seem to have something against generalizing an individual (Which doesn't even really make sense, if you're saying something about a single individual it is by definition not generalizing) but think that somehow these people cease to be individuals once you assign them to a group of your own creation

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple

And please don't come to my comment thread with propriety, telling me what I can and can't say in regards to your hypocrisy

Pal.

I'm just saying, you're an idiot if you think that individuals and groups are the same thing.

Have a great fucking day, Buddy.

And you're an idiotic if you think generalizing groups means it doesn't extend towards the individuals as well.

A group is made up of individuals, it is not its own entity. It is just a concept.

True, but I think that this is mainly due to the fact that we mistrust corporate media to such a large extent that we are incapable of believing their take on things. We generally look to the person or entity "who benefits" when a large-scale crime or atrocity is committed; hence our quickness to judge the mainstream explanation, which usually is not grounded in any type of rational motive, a lie. But I agree that we can be a stubborn bunch.

I'd say its exactly the same for non-believers as well, just as you have a distrust for mainstream media painting the picture however someone wants it painted, people who don't believe like myself don't believe smaller independant media and blogs due to them doing it the same way just in a different direction.

Well it's the same in the sense that we both don't trust a source of information for a reason. I stopped trusting the msm because they weave completely unbelievable tales with no conceivable person standing to benefit according to the narrative they would have you believe. Your mistrust in small blogs is grounded in a different rationale.

I think it's closer to the truth to say, as Butler Shaffer does here, that people incorporate the State as an extension of their personal identity. No one likes to be thought of as a bad person. If you identify yourself deeply with the State ("USA!" "USA!" "USA!") you will either tune out any unwelcome criticism of the State, or become enraged and try to shout down the critic. Because at that point it's an attack on yourself.

We might as well call it, state programming.

I agree with you, except for the statement "lack of intellectual capacity" only because I know many intelligent people who have simply NOT taken the time to understand.
You world view is your paradigm. Trying to change someone's paradigm by force is very difficult. Even when it happens naturally it can have dramatic effects on one's brain. Take my dad, who is a lifetime military. He never believes conspiracy, and if was made known to him it might blow his mind forever, so his brain works overtime to ensure he doesn't see it. It works the same way with people in a cult or religious zealots. They cant see it until they do, then it blows their mind. Sometimes that has a negative effect.

That's wonderfully simplistic.

This is a very good (free) book about authoritarianism that will help develop your theory.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Thanks! I'll give it a look.

Well said, I agree wholeheartedly.

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

Is that statement itself true, or is it not?

Its called Cognitive Dissonance and is a very real thing. Its truly a phenomenon to behold; watching someone as they're presented with evidence that destroys predispositions or deeply held beliefs. Then to justify the differences with some crazy irrational thoughts that make sense to them, but don't make any logical sense in reality.

Excellent comment , and I applaud you for expressing their linear existance so well

[deleted]

Alright, I'll bite.

Okay, but 13 times?

Alright, I'll bite.

It's BS like this that keeps you guys from being taken seriously.

I think I've cracked the psychological profile on the anti-conspiracy crowd.

So there is a crowd of pro and con conspiracy people? Seems pretty binary but not outside of the realm of possibility.

To put it quite simply, they observe reality with a binary frame of reference.

Oh. That was fast.

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

This makes no sense. You're 3 pips in and you're already doubling back.

You can observe this phenomena when you ask them about known and exposed historical conspiracies. In their opinion, the existence of said conspiracies does not support the existence of unknown conspiracies.

Well, this is the first accurate thing you've said. Because it's true. Washington inducting 140 thousand people in to the freemasons has absolutely 0 effect on the WTC. They are separate, individual historical events separated by 200 years. You need to have actual evidence of your current theory, not anecdotal evidence that conspiracies can happen.

They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to contemplate the infinite possibilities between the two states.

Everyone? You're back to that binary thing again. I'll point out that absolutes are pretty unreliable unless you're talking about a very small subset of people. For instance, all Shakers currently alive are abstinent. We can say this with confidence because there are only 5 or 6 alive. But saying something like, all school children do not understand math fails to take in to account the staggeringly large number of school children and their various individual abilities. It cannot, statistically, be true. Nor can your accusation.

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."

But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon.

An example:

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

We know this already.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

Ruffled a few feathers I see.

He just tries to prove OP's point.

Wow, this is beautiful. Im glad to be a conspiracy theorist, i don't live in the illusion everyone is accustomed too..

The reality is that the people who are "anti-conspiracy" do not fear authority. It's not that we see everyone black and white. We want evidence. Proof. Skepticism is by no means a bad thing.

If you ask me, the conspiracy theorists are the ones that only see the world black and white.

They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to contemplate the infinite possibilities between the two states.

Just because there may be an infinite amount of possibilities, doesn't make any of them true. Skeptics and conspiracy theorists can both contemplate possibilities, but skeptics understand you need evidence to decide those possibilities are true.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

No. I can understand the possibility of conspiracy theories, but it infuriates me and skeptics like me to see people thinking that possibility equates to fact. It doesn't. If you don't understand this basic principle, you can never apply logic and critical thinking to your beliefs.

Mockery.

We mock you because you refuse to listen to reason.

I would argue that what constitutes "evidence" for your kind, lies within a very narrow margin that must be approved by authority.

You are incapable of evaluating actual evidence on your own accord.

While the authorities help, as they usually have experience a field in, but ultimately what determines evidence is the results gathered from the scientific method. If the results are accurate, they can be replicated by others. The problem is, conspiracy theorists never seem to be able to back their claims up with evidence that can be corroborated by other people.

A guy who undoubtedly believes that 3 steel framed skyscrapers were brought down by fire is going to lecture me on the scientific method. That is rich.

Could you provide me with a peer reviewed analysis of the events of 911 that support the "truthers?" Because if you can't then the results of any "911 scholars" can't be replicated and are thus not science.

Well thanks for proving my point about authority.

I'll tell you what! Grab a ruler and a stopwatch. Determine that each building fell at a rate statistically significant to the acceleration of gravity. Then, provide me with an explanation as to how that is physically possible.

Peer-reviewed science is a farce. No mainstream scientist would dare touch demolition theory because they know what it would mean to their career.

Stop acting like there is a level playing field.

Nice username btw. Dunce.

So no, you couldn't find a peer reviewed source I take. And 911 "scholars" could submit something for peer review, it wouldn't have to be a mainstream scientist. Ultimately if no other scientist could replicate the results than it isn't science.

Sure anti-conspiracy are religious. We believe in our only god : Fact.

Good analysis and I agree. There might be some wacko conspiracy theories out there, but it doesn't excuse the wacko beliefs in government that exist. They're equally wacko.

One thing I will add/correct to your comment:

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

it's better to say back is white. War is peace. Debt is wealth. Law is freedom. So it's not just a binary world for them, it's the opposite of reality.

I agree with your point.

I was trying to illustrate that for this type of thinker, shades of grey always tend to give way to one end of the spectrum.

More often than not the end of the spectrum they find themselves on is the one that they're expected to be on.

Or you know, the people just disagree with you. Can't people disagree on issues without having to psychoanalyze each other?

Alright, I'll bite. In a reply so massive, it takes two.

It's BS like this that keeps you guys from being taken seriously.

I think I've cracked the psychological profile on the anti-conspiracy crowd.

So there is a crowd of pro and con conspiracy people? Seems pretty binary but not outside of the realm of possibility.

To put it quite simply, they observe reality with a binary frame of reference.

Oh. That was fast.

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

This makes no sense. You're 3 pips in and you're already doubling back.

You can observe this phenomena when you ask them about known and exposed historical conspiracies. In their opinion, the existence of said conspiracies does not support the existence of unknown conspiracies.

Well, this is the first accurate thing you've said. Because it's true. Washington inducting 140 thousand people in to the freemasons has absolutely 0 effect on the WTC. They are separate, individual historical events separated by 200 years. You need to have actual evidence of your current theory, not anecdotal evidence that conspiracies can happen.

They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to contemplate the infinite possibilities between the two states.

Everyone? You're back to that binary thing again. I'll point out that absolutes are pretty unreliable unless you're talking about a very small subset of people. For instance, all Shakers currently alive are abstinent. We can say this with confidence because there are only 5 or 6 alive. But saying something like, all school children do not understand math fails to take in to account the staggeringly large number of school children and their various individual abilities. It cannot, statistically, be true. Nor can your accusation.

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."

But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon.

An example:

Ooh I like these.

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

We know this already.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."

But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon.

An example:

Ooh I like these.

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

We know this already.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

Alright, I'll bite.

It's BS like this that keeps you guys from being taken seriously.

I think I've cracked the psychological profile on the anti-conspiracy crowd.

So there is a crowd of pro and con conspiracy people? Seems pretty binary but not outside of the realm of possibility.

To put it quite simply, they observe reality with a binary frame of reference.

Oh. That was fast.

Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not.

This makes no sense. You're 3 pips in and you're already doubling back.

You can observe this phenomena when you ask them about known and exposed historical conspiracies. In their opinion, the existence of said conspiracies does not support the existence of unknown conspiracies.

Well, this is the first accurate thing you've said. Because it's true. Washington inducting 140 thousand people in to the freemasons has absolutely 0 effect on the WTC. They are separate, individual historical events separated by 200 years. You need to have actual evidence of your current theory, not anecdotal evidence that conspiracies can happen.

They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to contemplate the infinite possibilities between the two states.

Everyone? You're back to that binary thing again. I'll point out that absolutes are pretty unreliable unless you're talking about a very small subset of people. For instance, all Shakers currently alive are abstinent. We can say this with confidence because there are only 5 or 6 alive. But saying something like, all school children do not understand math fails to take in to account the staggeringly large number of school children and their various individual abilities. It cannot, statistically, be true. Nor can your accusation.

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."

But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon.

An example:

Ooh I like these.

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

We know this already.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."

But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon.

An example:

Ooh I like these.

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

We know this already.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

I think I've cracked the psychological profile of the conspiracy crowd.

To put it quite simply, they believe in the omnipotence of elites.

Power is bad. There is no such thing as a coincidence because, to them, things don't just happen, there is always someone or some group behind the scene pulling the strings.

You can observe this phenomena when anything bad happens and they immediately hop to the internet to claim false flags perpetrated by TBTB.

They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to understand that everyone who doesn’t think the government is behind 9/11 isn’t an ignorant sheep with the critical thinking skills of a two year old.

And in the event that they attempt to deduce something logically, their brain just poops the bed.

An example: your condescending statement

You can observe this phenomena when you ask them about known and exposed historical conspiracies. In their opinion, the existence of said conspiracies does not support the existence of unknown conspiracies.

is actually a perfectly logical position. The fact that there were ‘conspiracies’ in the past lends zero credibility to any current claims, the only thing that could do that is actual evidence, which needs to be vetted on a case by case basis. It’s why in a court of law the fact that a man on trial for murder may have murdered someone in the past is deemed irrelevant. Also, most of the confirmed conspiracy’s (Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods, MKUltra) weren’t even known about or suspected until the government declassified the information itself. It’s not like these are things people were sitting around saying had happened and then all of a sudden their beliefs were confirmed, these conspiracy’s really came out of nowhere for the most part.

I’m done copying your formatting, but you have quite an inflated ego, which I'm pretty sure is another thing I cracked about the psychological profile of conspiracy theorists. Damn I'm fucking smart.

Edit: on account of your edit calling out my shillery for Big Shill^TM - yes, I am totally misrepresenting the argument, guy who thinks "anti-conspiracy people" worship authoiry and only see the world in black and white.

You felt compelled to reply to me as if I was speaking to you personally? Who has the "inflated ego" again?

I just copied your formatting as a joke on account of you're so silly, not sure how is that acting like you are speaking to me directly... this is is reddit though, so that's kind how replies work.

And I do have a huge ego myself, goes hand in hand with being so insightful.

Because never in history has the ego led us astray. You just admitted why you're a numpty.

Nah, just said that for a laugh. I'm so fucking stupid I don't even have a clue what a numpty is...

For some reason I don't believe you.

okie dokie

You fight those Strawmen. You fight them...

They are smarter then everyone that disagrees with them. I hope someone submits that top comment to r/iamverysmsrt.

Alright, I'll bite.

It's BS like this that keeps you guys from being taken seriously.

I think I've cracked the psychological profile on the anti-conspiracy crowd. So there is a crowd of pro and con conspiracy people? Seems pretty binary but not outside of the realm of possibility. To put it quite simply, they observe reality with a binary frame of reference. Oh. That was fast. Black and white. Up and down. Right and wrong. There is no such thing as a conspiracy, because to them things just are, or they are not. This makes no sense. You're 3 pips in and you're already doubling back.
You can observe this phenomena when you ask them about known and exposed historical conspiracies. In their opinion, the existence of said conspiracies does not support the existence of unknown conspiracies. Well, this is the first accurate thing you've said. Because it's true. Washington inducting 140 thousand people in to the freemasons has absolutely 0 effect on the WTC. They are separate, individual historical events separated by 200 years. You need to have actual evidence of your current theory, not anecdotal evidence that conspiracies can happen. They are wholly incapable of abstract thought necessary to contemplate the infinite possibilities between the two states. Everyone? You're back to that binary thing again. I'll point out that absolutes are pretty unreliable unless you're talking about a very small subset of people. For instance, all Shakers currently alive are abstinent. We can say this with confidence because there are only 5 or 6 alive. But saying something like, all school children do not understand math fails to take in to account the staggeringly large number of school children and their various individual abilities. It cannot, statistically, be true. Nor can your accusation. And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state. People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."
But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon. An example: Ooh I like these. Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry. Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.
Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that. Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too. Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens. We know this already. New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger. Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell. To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic. This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic. It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd. Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

And in the event that their binary state is forced to switch poles, the brain rewires a new binary state to supersede the failed state.

People aren't computers. You are thinking in binary terms here, so let me clear this up. People come with a vast array of emotional and psychological baggage, and no fact, however jarring, is going to change that. Sure, sometimes a switch gets flipped and triggers an instant all encompassing reaction. But that's reserved for things like "gee that lion is close and hungry looking. Maybe I should do something about that."

But telling people W. planned 9/11, you're going to need to support that with hard science. Otherwise you just soind like a loon.

An example:

Ruling state: The U.S. Government is generally good and seeks to improve the welfare of it's citizenry.

Who said they are generally good? I know a lot of noon conspiracy people that have not said a kind word about the government in years.

Existing sub state: The U.S. government does not spy on it's own citizens. A good government would not do that.

Also, who said? We know they do. We're on the internet too.

Now enter new information: NSA revealed to be spying on it's own citizens.

We know this already.

New state: The U.S. government does spy on it's own people, but a good government would do that as a means to protect them from danger.

Huh? Where do you get that leap from? Or do you think that every writer in the world criticizing this action is a conspiracy theorist? If that's the case, I have a bridge to sell.

To protect the ruling state, which governs a great number of important sub-states, the non-intellectual quickly switches sub states without contemplation and hopes that no one will notice the short circuit of logic.

This is wrong, but I've already touched on why this is terrible logic.

It is this lack of intellectual capacity to let thoughts and beliefs exist between the two states, to contemplate known unknowns and unknown unknowns that absolutely infuriates the anti-conspiracy crowd.

Aaaaah, you think you're an intellectual. This makes sense now. It's wrong, but I can see where you're coming from. Here's one of the oldest jokes in history (seriously):

An intellectual is walking down the street one day and a merchant says to him "ah, it looks like your beard is coming in." The intellectual runs back to the temple and waits by the gate. Another intellectual asks him what he's doing and he replies "the man said my beard was coming in, so I came back to wait for it." The other says "now this is why people think we have no common sense. How do you know it isn't coming in by the other gate?"

Dude. You posted about 12 comments in this thread, all of them being the same thing. Perhaps delete a few or something?

Be more patronising. If it's possible.

Those with a tendency to follow authority rather than use their own critical thinking and perceptions do tend to lack certain intellectual qualities useful for abstract thought.

We don't see many poets, artists and writers with authoritarian leanings, for instance. That's why the first class targeted by authoritarian regimes are usually the intellectuals and artists, the natural enemies of the authoritarian.

So you're saying poets, artists, and writers don't have the intellectual qualities useful for abstract thought?

I think you need to reread that.

I think you do. /u/americandreamsicle said poets, artists and writers, more than not, don't have authoritarian leanings. He's contradicting himself.

Uh, no he's not. Try reading it one more time, third time's the charm, eh?

Can you break down /u/americandreamsicle run on sentences then to tell me why I'm wrong?

Non-conspiricy theorists have a tendancy to follow authority, as in they have an authoritarian leaning, so they are not considered a threat by authority figures. They lack the critical and abstract thinking skills to oppose authority.

Poets and artists generally don't follow authority blindly, they don't tend to have authoritarian leanings, they also have good abstract thinking skills. Because of this, they are generally considered a threat by authority figures. Now does it make sense?

No. That makes no sense. By saying "Lack the critical and abstract thinking skills", means you're denying every single person's thoughts that don't colllde with yours

It means I'm denying the official narrative and the people who repeat it. Lets face the truth, those "thoughts" we're propagated.

Fear is a crazy bitch.

He also didn't have any run on sentences in there.

Is that a joke?

Waiting

There's nothing to clarify, the logic and grammar of his sentence structure is perfectly unambiguous. If you can't grok it, then perhaps you lack certain intellectual qualities. It's like if I say, an orange is a fruit that grows on a tree, and people that eat it get vitamin C, and you say can you clarify? Just re read it slowly, and if you still can't understand, elucidate what particular aspect of it you are having trouble understanding and maybe someone can help you.

Thesauruses don't make you smart. You clearly don't understand punctuation. You should have put "An orange is a fruit, that grows on a tree. And people that eat it get vitamin C"

Yeah, see, you're just a troll. And that's why no one is engaging you (except me I guess). Feigning not understanding things, and nit picking rather than adding anything useful to the discussion, typical troll behavior. (Being a grammar nazi doesn't make you smart, and patronizingly implying I am using a thesaurus because I have command of vocabulary is just petty condescension)

You must be bored with life.

You said "so you're saying poets, artists, and writers don't have the intellectual qualities useful for abstract thought?" But /u/americandreamsicle never said that, and you never explained how you interpreted what he said as having said that. There is no substance in what you are saying, and you are the only one who fails to see that.

I'm sorry that I want to talk to someone that has a basic understanding of the english language.

I WONT TALK TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T CAPITALIZE THE LETTER C IN VITAMIN C AND THAT MAKES ME SMARTER THAN YOU

Lol, jesus christ what a troll loser you are

Right... Because "that grows on a tree" is a complete thought..."

That's not how commas work.

In this scenario it is. They have to be two complete thoughts.

You just used a coordinating conjunction Incorrectly; and could of fixed it with a semicolon. A comma could of also been used to seperate your non-essential word group.

Ok. Ignoring "and could of fixed it", look at /u/escapefromdigg's comment, and tell me there aren't more egregious errors in that paragraph.

He's really not though. He's saying that artists tend not to follow authority blindly as they seem to be capable of the necessary abstract thinking to see through authoritarian indoctrination.

Whereas generally very intelligent people supposedly see the world in black and white, good or bad, right or wrong. That's the basic premise one can agree or disagree with, but there's no contradiction in OP's statement.

My favorite thing is seeing this sub mentioned elsewhere on reddit, and the ensuing DAE /r/conspiratards ROFL circlejerk. There's a reason we talk about people as being sheep, even if that's a "believer" meme now. Never worry about what others think.

The answer (not that you asked a question) is simple though: JTRIG.

They're either paid or enjoy the same perspective. But both types detract, derail, and completely attempt to stifle any productive questioning or reporting.

I'm right up the middle on stuff. I believe in the necessity of authority and that generally authority is good or at least trying its best in good faith at most times.

Too much of conspiracy rejects any authority, to the point if there was an anarchist running for president, there'd be unfounded claims that he was in on any number of conspiracies.

Too much of conspiratard is blind authority worship like OP says to the point that if Hitler were around today they would be mocking people for believing he wanted to start the holocaust.

It's not surprising as any group usually reinforces an ethos. The major problem being when evidence takes a back seat to ethos which is the same problem political parties have or the new wave feminists versus gamergate has. Once you self-identify as a believer in something, you're self-worth becomes wrapped up in making sure all cases fit your belief instead of making sure your beliefs fit all cases.

I'm a conspiracy theorist. I'm right there with Eisenhower warning about the military/industrial complex, I'm certain that something strange went down in Dallas, the 18 minutes were probably edited out by people with the right clearance, Iran/Contra was probably only the tip of the iceberg, etc.

But there's another kind of conspiracy theorist out there... They're not actually engaging in theory, so much as wild speculation. And it's not really about conspiracy so much as fear. That's the crowd that thinks that everything that's not a government false flag is satanic. They're the people who are crippled by fear of unknown forces wielding unimaginable power, observing and controlling everything they do.

It's not conspiracy theory, really, it's just unenlightened paranoia.

Now, I don't know which of those camps you fall into, but if you demand evidence before you leap to conclusions, then you're okay in my book. It's fine to have suspicions, but the reddit "conspiracy theorist" rarely stops at suspicions just because they lack evidence, and any YouTube video that strokes their confirmation bias can be called, "research."

The first sensible comment I have seen in this circlejerk of a thread. Many conspiracies exist - they just aren't as fanciful as so many people here wish them to be.

For example, many real conspiracies can be seen in these documentaries: http://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/

While Potholer shows us what BS is pushed under the conspiracy title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhWpP-vPUcQ

So sad that the OP tried to lump every conspiracy theorist together. But that's what happens and that's why you get threads like this one.

i'd definitely be afraid of aleister crowley, especially if i had to live in his mansion...

But the Reptilians have taken over the New World Order!... And the Illuminati!! Shill!!! Rabble rabble!, Alex Jones!, Rabble rabble!

Seriously though, I personally like the far out paranoia type theories to remind me occasionally to step back and think logically and not get too pissed off about the BS that IS actual conspiracy, not just insane theory with little evidence.

From my perspective, the goal should always be to seek the truth, wherever that may lie.

...and 'small minded religious freak' is just as slanderous.

Discrimination is discrimination, man.

I think it's sexist that you assume OP is a man.

Well, OP is clearly man or woman.

So... 'man' fits both cases.

I checked your math, and I see you are correct.

i checked your username and the word 'woman' contains two more letters than 'man.' Saying that it fits is sexist.

There are large-hearted religious folks. They generally don't call people infidels and heathens.

Small-minded religious people are freaky by definition.

Not everyone who is religious is a small minded freak.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

'small minded'

Progressivism is a nontheistic religion. In fact it is the current state religion.

We have a global problem of mass delusion. I wouldn't call that "discrimination".

Yes, it's a weaponized term used as a prejorative to shut down any critical thinking and debate. The worst use of this kind of belittling is the term 'truther' Like it's a bad thing for people to seek the truth. Whenever I encounter these kinds of people who use these terms, it's little use in trying to have any rational or logical discussion with them. Whatever the established or mainstream narrative is, they will believe it no matter what and ridicule anyone who doesn't follow the herd mentality.

In 15th century Europe, questioning the divinity of Jesus held the same place that questioning any official fable today holds. The mindset of official fable pushers and official fable believers never changes, no matter the era.

Yes. It's just as serious and you're 100% correct with this comparison.

In no way is this self-congratulatory rubbish posing as some sort of freethinking bravery.

Good for you, OP.

If your ox got gored, please don't trail blood through the place.

Hello, resident shill.

xHellox xtox xyoux xtoox

They disagree, must be a shill!! Conspiracies errrvrywhere!!!

Hello there, resident ass.

The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer

If you can look past his partisan hangups it's a pretty good overview of their mindset. Our "friends" at the "lol jooz and 'tards" thought police sub are prime examples of authoritarians.

"Worship of authority"

One of the hallmarks of a fascist state.

People used to be suspicious of authority. Take a look at some old Hollywood movies and you'll see this as a common theme. Capricorn 1, Silkwood, The China Syndrome.... just to name a few. That was the attitude back then.

What has changed? There are still a lot of people that think this way. We at r/conspiracy represent this way of thinking. But there is a trend towards disbelief. This trend is being supported (pushed even) by the MSM.

If we really are transitioning over to an Orwellian style fascist state, I would expect to see a few things. One, continued ridicule of people with opinions that dissent/diverge from the official narrative. Two, increased efforts to censor stories and content that reflect this perspective. Three, increased legislation against same.

The government is not God, nor is it a god. The government is people. Therefore, the government acts just like people do. It can cheat, steal, lie and kill as long as it thinks that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the drawbacks.

Anyone who doubts that is living in a dream world.

Reminds me of this quote.

"A liberal is a power worshiper without power." -George Orwell

It's worth noting that, in the context of Orwell (Europe in the XX century), the term "Liberal" has a much different meaning than what it has come to represent in American political discourse.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Here's another, with the same caveats that you stated:

The Anti-Humans: Student Re-education in Romanian Prisons

Or sometimes we're just asking for real evidence. Not just a story and ad hoc explanations of its flaws, or motive seeking an opportunity, etc. When someone does this I usually dismiss them saying (usually only in my head) "you're just a conspiracy theorist."

Sometimes there are many small pieces of evidence that paint a larger picture and there is no one piece of evidence that is a smoking gun. It seems that many debunkers demand that you lay out every detail to support an alternative theory besides the official theory. Then they complain that you don't have the evidence to support it. It's best to just look at all of the credible evidence available as it is and not demand what does not yet exist. It's irrational to do otherwise. One has to be comfortable enough accepting that one does not know certain things and not insistant that they must be known.

To use a previous analogy, how would I prove the non-divinity of Jesus in 15th century Europe to a 15th century European who believe in Christ?

Is this a joke answer?

That's an analogy involving religious faith. It's not relevant to scottbell's question.

The faith here is that only views that differ from the status quo need proof. The status quo perspective is adopted without question or proof based on the say so of authority figures. Unquestioning faith in authority.

Nope

Views with a near unanimity of support do get certain benefits in the cultural milieu, because most people reasonably assume that in order for that view to be as common as it is some persuasive evidence must have been presented at some point in the past. And I suppose that this constitutes an extremely low level of proof.

But any statement of fact needs to be proven. Accepting something as true because it's accepted by nearly everyone is legitimate if you haven't done the research yourself, but if you've done the research and discover the evidence is faulty then stop believing. However, the fact that you met one person who said, "maybe what you believe isn't true. You only believe what you believe now because it's the status quo" doesn't count as sufficient reason to abandon belief in beliefs that are held by a near consensus, and doesn't necessitate a person go on a quest to understand the evidence behind their belief to maintain rationality.

But any statement of fact needs to be proven.

But most people will believe whatever authority tells them without asking for proof.

9/11, jet fuel and melted steel, for example.

And have you done or obseved any experients involving jet fuel and steel? If not, you're just believing authority as much as anyone else. You're just choosing to believe alternative authoities. It seems to me that jet fuel is pretty darn hot, but I'm not going to pretend to be an expert.

No, I'm saying I don't believe the authorities that say that jet fuel melted steel because they haven't proven it. I'm not saying nor have I ever said that I know what happened, because I don't know.

All I'm saying is that the official fable of melted steel via jet fuel isn't proven by the authorities that claim it to be fact. Anyone that does believe it is just believing it on faith alone, like people that used to believe that Jesus was divine because an authority said so.

To the degree that you're skeptical, fair enough. I'd never encourage anyone to stop investigating questions that they are unconvinced of conventional answers to. My only point is that denial of conspiracy theories is not necessarily indicative of a kind or credulity.

Believing the statements and decrees of government, a source of countless untruths and outright lies, is indicative of credulity.

What is called "conspiracy theory" by officialdom and its apologists is actually just plain old skepticism and distrust of government. Skepticism should be the default, not belief.

Nope

people assume persuasive evidence must have been presented at some point in the past. And I suppose that this constitutes an extremely low level of proof.

you say nope and then agree with me.

Accepting something as true because it's accepted by nearly everyone is legitimate if you haven't done the research yourself

any excuse to not look into it. what kind of nonsense is this?

The reason why someone wouldn't look further into claims made by conspiracy theorists is because they're often made by the type of untrustworthy people who would heavily edit a prooftext of a quote (15 words were deleted from your partial quote of me) in order to make it sound like I agreed with them in the first place.

Proves no one can trust anything you say.

Pft.

people reasonably assume that in order for that view to be as common as it is some persuasive evidence must have been presented at some point in the past. And I suppose that this constitutes an extremely low level of proof.

pretty close to what you expressed i think.

its not like you don't remember what you said. or that anyone reading that comment didn't previously read exactly what you said.

Are you claiming you redacted my words in order to more accurately represent them? Because usually redaction is a sign that someone said something the redactor preferred wasn't there.

Are you claiming you redacted my words in order to more accurately represent them?

nope

are you claiming that i significantly altered the meaning of your quote?

Of course that's what I'm claiming. I'm also claiming that you wouldn't edit a comment you didn't find difficult in it's original form. And I'm claiming that this represents a dishonest style of argumentation, and undermines everything you have to say. That said, I'm done responding to you, unless you somehow stumble upon a point worth responding to, and I'll let this little exchange exist, and the world of r/conspiracy can decide which of us is the reasonable person.

you don't have to run off and be done responding. we can discuss things and be bros.

how much was really lost?

To start with, it's not like there's only two sides to every story. Whole media outlets make a living by digging around what you're calling the "status quo perspective" - term that's vague enough to be absolutely meaningless. Other places you find wild speculation and theorising, which is laudable in a free-speech sense, but usually makes no goddamm sense and relies on either vitriol or wilfully obtuse reasoning.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's useful and sometimes illuminating. But it's not the product of several people's working days, not signed at the bottom by anyone, the author is in no danger of legal repercussions if they are wrong. The cost to the reddit/YouTube user of being wrong is nil. The cost to media is real. It's growing less over time, and indeed is less than it should be, but it means more than it does to the redditor.

That would be one reason that it isn't unreasonable to ask for evidence. The other is the old canard about extraordinary claims. That's fairly subjective but I think most people can reasonably consider what is or isn't a likely story.

Could go on.

So what was the cost to cnn when they faked an air strike situation in the gulf war and broadcast it to the public?

http://youtu.be/jTWY14eyMFg

What about the Nayirah testimony that was used to sway public opinion for the gulf war and turned out to be fake?

http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y

I suppose I could go on as well.

Alright I'm at work so can't watch the videos. Don't know about the airstrike one but the Nayirah case is interesting. From what I remember journalists were furious at having being misled.

Also it's not that relevant to what I was talking about, seeing as Amnesty et al corroborated the information and all media outlets ran with it. It's not like CNN knew it was false and decided to air it anyway. If that was the case then we could talk about the cost of being wrong. This is just a straight-up-and-down case of manipulation by an outside group who guessed they were pushing the country somewhere it already wanted to go.

Lobbyists doing their job, you might say. Nobody likes it.

You don't know about it but from what you guess it's not that relevant. What kind of bs response is this?

They will run complete fabrications as news stories and that's a big problem. Look into it and forgive us for questioning.

I'm saying I don't know about the air strike story. The rest of the comment regards the Nayirah testimony.

Think I made that pretty clear.

I'm saying I don't know about the air strike story.

exactly.

watch the air strike vid. ask yourself if CNN might have possibly been doing what they were told to do. at any rate its an odd thing to fake that kind of thing. can we agree on that?

1. Read post
2. Reply

watch the air strike vid.

As I said, at work so can't watch the videos.

I'm saying I don't know about the air strike story.

exactly.

What the hell? Refraining from comment because I'm not aware of the story. No "exactly" about it.

ask yourself if CNN might have possibly been doing what they were told to do. at any rate its an odd thing to fake that kind of thing. can we agree on that?

Can't watch the video right now so clearly won't be agreeing or disagreeing.

Refraining from comment because I'm not aware of the story.

You certainly are not refraining from comment. You're commenting all over about how you're unaware of the things you are commenting on.

Refraining from comment because I'm not aware of the story.

You certainly are not refraining from comment. You're commenting all over about how you're unaware of the things you are commenting on.

JFC.

Not commenting on the airstrike story for reasons I've stated again and again.

Commenting on the Nayirah testimony as I'm familiar with the story and therefore don't need to watch a video that's currently unavailable to me. If you don't understand this there's nothing more I can do.

I'm just sitting here waiting for you to watch that video and comprehend what I was getting at in that original post. I know you're just talking about Nayriah. What I don't think you get is that you are missing a lot by commenting before you actually watch what was linked.

I mean how much is an uninformed opinion worth?

I'm saying I don't know about the air strike story.

what rock have you been living under !?

Your answer is the joke.

Ok then.

My point is that believing in the official fables of any central authority is the same as religious faith.

I don't love that analogy, because the divinity of Jesus probably wasn't something they became convinced of in the first place, and because even today with modern scientific advancements that contradict The Bible & secular biblical scholarship, you still can't convince a believer that anything about their faith is untennable. But just to play the game, I'd probably point out that the main reason they believe Jesus was divine is that they believe he came back from the dead. However, they'd never seen anyone come back from the dead, they'd never heard a verifiable report of anyone coming back from the dead, but they have heard of people making up fantastic stories. So, why would you choose to believe that someone came back from the dead based on ancient evidence that boils down to someone said so.

But in the case of many conspiracy theories, the person espousing the theory is more in the place of the Christian trying to justify their faith (but of course lacking the support of the state and culture at large), than the person requesting evidence to support it. I have no problem believing conspiracy theories when there's sufficient evidence to support them. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment happened, nothing happened in the gulf of tonkin, scientologists did infiltrate the government and destroy incriminating paperwork.

This is your NEW WORLD ORDER:

Stop blaming Obama. He is a Puppet. Look to the Puppet Masters. It is so much more: Come out of the Matrix to the Truth. The top 1% aka as the elite wealthy HAVES; they don't care whether you vote liberal or conservative throughout the world because they own all of the boxes you check. The difference is how fast they shove their predetermined agenda down the throats of the masses. They instigate perpetual war while they invest in aerospace, oil, ammunition, and pharmaceuticals and they don't care who wins because they profit as they stack up coffins on all sides while the coffers of the belly of the beast / dragon continues to grow where less is less for the masses and more for them. They use war for profit and depopulation. They burn aborted fetuses aka medical waste of the unborn for energy. They have a stated/printed agenda to rid the world of 6.5 billion people (Agenda 21) while they push euthanasia, birth control, abortion, end of life, pesticides, Genetically Modified Food, Unhealthy food additives, etc. in the name of profit. They use different religious denominations to war against the others. Most churches are not cults. Most are corporations filled with lemmings where free independent thinkers are shunned. Church denominations are used to control the masses. Many pastors will lead their sheep to slaughter as long as the coffers are full. They speak and preach politically correct gospel so as not to offend.

"Meanwhile three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Come out of the Matrix before it's too late. Before the elite wealthy HAVES force the microchipping (RFID, etc.) of humans.

Are you seeing a thousand points of light yet, or enjoying your less for you is more for them, and how are you enjoying your hope and change?

It does not matter whether ebola was intentionally brought to this country to scare the masses into voluntarily giving up rights, or to intentionally spread disease for depopulation purposes (Agenda 21), or to spread disease to force the vaccination of the masses and perhaps the marking of the population so vaccine makers (George Soros funds ebola vaccine lab in Ukraine) and patent holders (Bill Gates, CDC, NHI) could reap billions in profit. What does matter is that the elite wealthy HAVES aka as the top 1% created this for secret ulterior motives to affect their end result of ridding the planet of 6.5 billion people and to feed their perpetual war machine. What is clear is there is a pervasive consumate evil in the world today.

They (elite wealthy HAVES) teach a language of divisive hate speech (jew versus everyone, christian versus muslim, black versus white, left versus right, democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative) Look to who profits. Always follow the money trail. Reddit censors.

Can we call this poster a conspiracy theorist? Because that's all pretty absurd. There's always some new threat or new event that's going to enact a global depopulation. Doesn't even make any sense. Why would rich people want to get rid of 6.5 billion people? Wouldn't that get rid of all the people that makes being rich have a point?

Listen in JFK's own words as he warns us of the secret societies. Robots will replace you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Then when you are done with that, listen to Jay Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller and David Rockefeller talk of depopulation and then listen to Bill Gates talk of "new vaccines" for depopulation purposes. When you are done there, key into the article where over 100 Indian women were given sterilization procedures in exchange for cars and tvs and have since died horrible deaths. It is understandable that you would be skeptical without first an education. When you are done with that, look up Charles Sannat's remarks as he addresses the 2014 Bilderberg commission on world depopulation on wordpress. Also Eisenhower warned us as well, see Youtube. If you need links, let me know. Draw your own conclusions keeping in mind that the UN and USA as well as FBI, NSA, etc. are paid to sit on these sites and discredit truthful information.

Did you listen to that speech? He's talking about the dangers of communism and he's asking the news media to be careful about the information they publish because it's providing intelligence to the enemy.

listen to Bill Gates talk of "new vaccines" for depopulation purposes.

I really think you misinterpreted his quote. "Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3."

He's talking about lowering infant and general mortality (vaccines), increasing lifespan (healthcare), and providing means to control sexual health. These methods combined will allow populations to live longer and have fewer children. If you live somewhere where your children are constantly under threat of dying from disease you're going to try to have as many as possible to ensure that some survive. This causes an excess because everyone is doing the same thing. If your kids don't die from [insert disease] then you won't have to have as many and you won't if you utilize birth control.

I'm not sure what Indias sterilization programs have to do with this. Like China, they have a massive population and are trying to curb this. I don't really agree with government endorsed sterilization but it's not my country and I'm not a party to that decision.

I know you've bought into this pretty deeply so I doubt anything I say will make an impact on you but you really need to relax.

So JFK is talking about communism and he describes it as a secret society that infiltrates using covet means? Has any other prominent figure described communism in similar terms before or since?

http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/leaked-bilderberg-closing-remarks-2014-must-read/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3WXcRfsrTQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3t8BC8XyTg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3t8BC8XyTg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/leaked-bilderberg-closing-remarks-2014-must-read/

http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm

http://www.whale.to/c/22.html

http://seraphim779.tripod.com/depop.html

Needless to say, we can agree to disagree but there are too many original sources to discount and I am mindfull that governments pay people to sit online and discredit people that speak a Truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5LlplhtPPM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Can we call you a bootlicker?

Honestly, I've read fewer things that ring more truly that what this person just wrote. If you can't see that, I feel very sorry for you. I just wish more of us could see the truth. But honestly, I think we are beyond the point of return already.

U.S. financial services firms have agreed to pay billions in fines for their parts in the Great Recession...no senior banker has been charged with any wrongdoing.

"Not only did they rig it, but they bragged about how they rigged it," said William Black, a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri.

'It's no conspiracy theory. It is a real conspiracy.' "

Steal 250 dollars. Do two years. Steal $250 billion? Get a year end bonus. Fucking disgusting.

I welcome the call. Stand up to the people that don't know shit!

You should start with this sub.

no generally they just mean you are leaping to unlikely conclusions based on insufficient evidence

No, that's called watching the news and thinking it is true and that they have your best interest at heart.

the true conspiracy here is the main conspiracy of all, the conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theorists; there are really big important conspiracies but they hide behind really stupid ones, where most amateur conspiracy theorists fall into, so the the real smart ones looking through this say curtain of shitty conspiracies always get shamed or bullied into being your average tin-foil idiot.

the shit is so deep and spread out that it is really hard to separate it from the reality of the situation and even the smart conspiracy theorists can and usually will get their hands dirty with a bit of shit (bad theories) and will get bad reputation which is hard to get rid of.

and now the problem is the big rabbit holes of truth are so complex, full of tunnels underneath the earth you really need devoted theorists to get interested and dedicate time which the common joe does not have.

Worship of the state, to be more specific. And it is a religion, case in point

wah wah people don't believe me

Yes, but unlike Heretic, infidel or heathen, those titles weren't what the people called that, actually called themselves.

You don't like being called a conspiracy theorist? Too bad. Stop forming theories that every fucking event that takes place in the world is a conspiracy.

Statolatry

Pure Hegelianism also turns the State into a god. Many of the religious-like precepts of modern worshipers of the State descend from Hegel.

Except that heresy is almost cult like

I'd just like to say, for me, the movie Parallax View flicked a switch and made me question many things I simply trusted because authorities said it was so.

Edit: If you haven't seen it, it's awesome - currently streaming on Netflix.

I think this video has some relevance here. I know not everyone here leans anarchist or libertarian but it is interesting food for thought.

There is a hierarchy of knowledge. If you are a "conspiracy theorist" then you have leveled up and no longer regard the propaganda given to you by authority as fact. This also goes beyond the current accepted paradigm in the world. When you try and change someone's paradigm it usually doesn't happen willingly.
I've gotten older and care far less what simple minded level 1 sheeple think. I agree with OP.

One can use the exact same argument when the word 'shill' gets thrown around subs like this.

Generally, I say something is at "conspiracy theory" level because the evidence for it suggests a low probability of it being true. Either it presents a scenario which explains all known facts but there are a thousand other radically different scenarios which also do, or there is an explanation which is orders of magnitude more likely. It really has nothing to do with resorting to authority.

The real danger is lazy thinking, which is possible at any point on the authoritarian/independent spectrum.

Don't the media blatantly ridicule conspiracy theories? Do you trust them implicitly or what is wrong with you exactly? Do you need to be slapped or something?

Don't the media blatantly ridicule conspiracy theories?

There is an ambiguity in the term. The general usage is a term of ridicule, an assessment of low probability for whatever reason. But of course it can also mean a theory about a conspiracy. Those are presented in mass media all the time, though maybe not the ones you or I would like. For example, "The Saudis are not cutting oil production because they want to bankrupt US oil ventures/Russia" is a conspiracy theory which is getting a lot of play recently.

Do you trust them implicitly or what is wrong with you exactly?

Not at all, I think for myself. Chomsky reads the NYT first thing every day knowing half of it's distorted and trying to filter that distortion out. And you can't get much more independently minded than him.

I think you have to accept the concept of an illusion within an illusion, to see patterns and decide for yourself. You can't actually avoid the idea that an image is being transmitted into your mind by the media and life in general. You have to really question that first. If it really is the matrix like they say, then Chomsky can't be your go to guy. Academia itself is part of 'the Matrix'. That movie explains the concept pretty well except it fails in one area. The stakes are far bigger than the movie portrays.

This it's so true. Can someone smarter than me x/post this to all?

Damn right!

Paradigm shifts are hard, and always have been (the earth is flat, right). People are really willing to support the main ideals of their society, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW SOCIETY WORKS.

I agree.

Conspiracies take place all the time. Example: The plan to storm a pakastani house and kill Osama bin Laden. Outr Our Leader(s) conspired to assassinate him, and carried it out. Our military has a pretty good record of success in this department. I imagine our government has tons of people conspiring, God only knows what, with co-conspirators.

Occupy Wall Street says “Hudes’ story is easily the most interesting, compared to major financial scandals, surveillance, etc. The American public, indeed the whole world, would unify with an understanding of a rigged world for a few.” I worked in the World Bank’s Legal Department for 21 years, and reported a cover-up of corruption up the corporate ladder to the World Bank’s Audit Committee, to the US Treasury Department, to the US Congress, and then to 188 member countries of the Bretton Woods institutions. Most Americans are unaware that the US remained a British colony, subject along with the UK to Rome. The UK and the City of London have been subservient to the Vatican ever since the Concession of May 15, 1213. http://anationbeguiled.com/?p=1277 (trust me and ignore the fake warning) The 188 Foreign Ministers on the World Bank's Board of Governors reinstated me, and then appointed me to safeguard the world's wealth, put in a trust fund for the benefit of humanity at the end of WWII. I have called out the US military for illegal transports of this gold. You may have seen me at http://kahudes.net/ or followed me https://twitter.com/KarenHudes or https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10 or http://www.frank-webb.com/karen-hudes--- updates.htm

Brother controlling brother, one family controlling another, one town controlling another, etc.

It is human nature, even if a mass 'awakening' happened, we would soon revert to being controlled by others.

The trick is, to use the system to the advantage of yourself and those who you care about.

When someone calls refers to me as a 'conspiracy theorist', I gently correct their misconception and explain how I am what educated individuals and intellectuals once referred to as a 'critical thinker'. The resulting discourse is often entertaining and always fulfilling.

bullshit and that for two reasons: 1) The opposite of a "conspiracy theorist" is not a folly which blindly believes in a "good ordering hand" but someone who belives that there is no higher order/control at all.

2) Therefore (and due to the dogmatic structure of religions) a conspiracy theorist is nearer to the group of "religious freaks" than someone who does not go out looking for a conspiracy behind everything.

Without a doubt there are conspiracies at work - big ones at that. But somehow they tend to be ignored. Why? Because the majority of the gullible conspiracy theorists concentrate on impossible-to-prove and unlikely-to-happen theories.

For your example of a good government: Which good Government, which good society goes on killing innocents and torturing prisoners?

The US has a long list of conspiracies but all people talk about are bloody idiotic accusations.

It's now a meme

http://i.imgur.com/GWMCEsk.png

When I call someone a "conspiracy theorist", it's because they subscribe to every conspiracy theory they hear. Sure, all of them might be true, but the conspiracy theorist immediately defends the validity of every conspiracy at first glance. I had a roommate who went straight to conspiracy theorist. Within a few months he adamantly maintained 9/11 as inside job, Sandy Hook didn't happen, chem trails control weather, hollow earth, fluoride in the water, aluminum in medicine, JFK assassination (OK I actually lean away from the official story here), etc.

If you can back up any theory you adhere to with facts and evidence, you're not a conspiracy theorist. If you accept any conspiracy to a significant degree based solely on conjecture, you're a conspiracy theorist.

9/11 as inside job, Sandy Hook didn't happen, chem trails control weather, hollow earth, fluoride in the water, aluminum in medicine, JFK assassination (OK I actually lean away from the official story here), etc.

9/11: From what I can tell after viewing hours of news clips, reading pages and pages of both sides of the controversy, and looking at all sorts of reports and building plans and listening to various theories I think it was an actual conspiracy set up by powerful people in our own government.

Sandy Hook: Something happened there but it's not remotely like what they tried to have us believe.

Chemtrails: Complete bullshit as far as I can tell. Kinda hard to even take this seriously on any level.

Hollow Earth: Only if you're wasted on acid and delusional.

Fluoride: I've read enough to think it's a very bad idea to put it in public drinking water. In fact, it should be illegal, actually, I think it is illegal but then, so are a lot of things that are being done by various governments of late. If you want to argue that it's legal then it at very least highly unethical.

Aluminum in medicine: I have no idea what this is even about.

JFK assassination: I've seen and read enough to believe we were lied to from the beginning.

Conspiracy equals crazy thanks to lizard men

I just ignore insults coming from tunnel vision muzzled mentally challenged deniers.

then so is a shill

I shared this link a few days ago on my facebook feed and WOW did I get attacked for it. Friends and family were outraged. After a few minutes of arguing with them it became clear they didn't even read the article. They just accused me of being AND I QUOTE: "Liberal, pot-smoking hippie-dippy bullshit and just offensive."

Their blind patriotism is frighteningly Orwellian.

wow, that doesn't surprise me much. I've got to say that the biggest problem with looking into alternative theories of things is that most peoples' view are just cemented in the status quo and there's no waking them up. don't even try. You're only going to isolate yourself by posting that kind of stuff to your dumass high school friends and family. Worse still, you risk labeled a heretic (as the op brought up) and side stepped for future opportunities. Instead come to somewhere like here to vent where at least some of us will get it.

It really surprised me. yeah man, lesson learned.

Great article by the way

Except religious people are typically only devout in one faith and view the worship of multiple faiths as ridiculous. Yet on here, most people tend to believe in several elaborate conspiracy theories, which to an unbeliever like me is a clear sign of lunacy.

Speaking of lunacy, please provide some evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11, and please dont cite that fake video from 2004 that everyone already knows is fake. Thanks.

EDIT: pic http://twitpic.com/e9ryz3

Yet on here, most people tend to believe in several elaborate conspiracy theories

Nice strawman you have there.

How is that a strawman? That's simply what I've observed. If you're willing to believe in many improbable conspiracies simultaneously, I doubt they've thought about the chances of all it being true at once. Pure probability.

Actually, it's the other way round. Once you understand that that which is commonly accepted as truth (steel frame towers just disintegrate and dustify when hit by an airplane) is a blatant lie, you begin to question all the other commonly accepted "truths". Where do all the trees come from that allegedly were pressurized into raw oil? At what velocity does a light particle become a wave? Is there really no alternative to our monetary system or the dictatorship of the majority? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

A theory is an attempt to offer an explanation for selected facts. It's possible to have many conflicting theories which explain the same facts.

The thing is - a true conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that a theory is correct, but merely assigns probabilities to them. For instance, theory A has 10% probability, theory B has 60% probability, the official narrative has 30% probability. Sometimes facts point to certain explanations, which some theories can describe better than others. But it still does not mean they are true. As more facts emerge, some theories are discarded, and new ones are created, which take into account the new situation. And sometimes even the official narrative turns out to be highly probable.

So it's possible to have several possible explanations (conspiracy theories) for underlying facts at the same time.

People can consider multiple unproven theories at the same time, based on the totality of the incomplete evidence available of which they are aware. That's not lunacy. That's speculation. Also, a subforum is not a monolith. There are people here who believe in or consider theories that contradict the theories that other people who come here believe or consider. All over reddit we see people perceive reddit as a single mind, but it is not.

Well religious people don't know the religion exactly, they're just told some shit.

This happened to me today. And I wasn't even arguing conspiracy with them, we we arguing over other shit.

I like your analogy, thanks.

Awesome post

That's hilarious and true. I'm actually going to call the next bozo I argue with about obvious conspiracy cases a Worshiper of Authority.

So you if you don't believe things with absolutely no facts you're following authority? Also, I don't believe you can put a lot of conspiracy theories in the same boat. Someone claiming the American government killed 3 thousand of its own people or the government is poisoning our water are both absolutely extraordinary claims with no facts backing it up. Those people are way out in left field and shouldn't be taken seriously. But there is nothing wrong with raising questions. The problems arises when you say "this thing is true even though I have nothing to prove it and anyone who tells me I'm wrong is just a puppet for the man!"

No facts backing it up? How about LOGIC and COMMON sense?!? Lets do a little math here. 2 airplanes hit two buildings designed to withstand the impact of multiple jet crashs. And three fell down. What more is there to say?

You have Nobel prize winning scientists telling us it was impossible. But no, believe the politicians, who as a side gig hold stocks in the military industrial complex and stand to make billions from war.

Run along sheep. I think I hear JC callin ya. And keep looking for the WMD in Iraq while you're at it okay?

you're a dumb ass and should smoke some DMT to decalsify your pineal gland

Except you do, in fact, believe in conspiracy theories. Just look at the name of the sub!

You missed the point. Not a surprise.

No shit eh, what a dumb ass..

Then please explain it to me like I'm five. Because I see an enormous difference between calling someone what they actually are, and using baseless derogatory language.

Yep.

Quality post on a quality subreddit.

And an equally quality comment m'good gentlesire. Many fedora tips t'ye and a happy new year!

Jerry you always know the right thing to say to cheer me up.

We can't all post in r/raiseyourdongers.

Everyone actually can.

What if someone has an issue with authority but also doesn't buy into conspiracy theories? You do realize that just because someone doesn't think authority figures are evil conspirators out to get them doesn't mean they worship or even approve of the things they do right? You see my take on the world is that it is way more boring and mundane and simple than the average theorists is willing to believe. The problem is not evil hidden hands controlling every aspect of our pathetic lives; the real problem is the fact that no one is in control. No one really knows whats going on or what they are doing. We are all clueless and incompetent. The problem is the facade we try to maintain that we have everything under control when really its not.

I don't agree with the implications of either of those extremes. Reality is a mixture of both. Sometimes there are conspiracies to control. Sometimes there are not. It's not always or never. Not every conspiracy theory is true. Not every conspiracy theory is false.

We aren't being micromanaged in every way conceivable and we are not completely free, coasting along on our own ignorance and incompetence either. We're doing both, at the same time, in different ways. The best that we can do is to examine all of the credible evidence available to paint a larger picture. The problem arises when we filter that evidence, because we don't like how the picture it begins to paint makes us feel. If we were emotionless, like a machine, we'd take it all in without doing that, not that we should aspire to be emotionless. We should aspire to look at everything there is without letting our fears control us.

I don't buy the supposition that no one is in control. Some are far, far more in control than others.

For instance, it's a fact that a tiny cartel of people pretty much owns the means to issue the currency and credit of most of the world. That means they control the volume and value of that currency and credit of much of the world, putting them in far more control than those of us, the majority, would have in the material and financial world.

There's only ever been one conspiracy and it's called Capitalism.

Can you even describe what capitalism is?

Blind faith in the free market.

That's it? That's all you got? Pitiful.

OK

Nope. Democracy falls right in there behind it.

Difference si that nowadays Authority can't burn conspiracy theorists like it burned heretics. That's one of their biggest problem with Democracy. The first one probably being internet.

It takes a big idiot to believe everything Authority tells them.

It takes a bigger idiot to believe nothing Authority tells them

Did you come up with that all by yourself? I cant imagine someone else said it and it was deemed worthy of repeating

It's amazing how "be skeptical" isn't a mantra we all have.

It takes a ginormous idiot to give authority to those that don't merit the honor.

Unless youre just batshit crazy and think magic lizard people are controlling the world from the hollow earth, using USOs to travel to Jupiter to exchange plans with the Dark General Thorax of the Merulian Fleet of Titan. Then youre, yeah, crazy.

So who actually thinks that? You?

Lets be honest, this sub comes across as a white supremacist society who blames the 'Jooz' for everything. Small minded is kinda ironic.

The white supremacists are the FBI agents or ADL employees that inhabit all online discussions looking for the dim bulbs.

BTW, it seems to be some diktat of authority that we never critique anything Jewish. Ever, ever, ever. We can only critique Muslims, Christians and Scientologists. Maybe Bronies.

The white supremacists are the FBI agents or ADL employees

Or the community could actively try and fix it's problems instead of blaming some vague organization that probably doesn't give two shits about you.

The white supremacists are the FBI agents or ADL employees that inhabit all online discussions looking for the dim bulbs.

/s?

"BTW, it seems to be some diktat of authority that we never critique anything Jewish"

Right..... Israel never gets criticised unjustly. SMH.

All of the criticism I've seen of Israel is pretty just.

I highly disagree. A disproportionate amount of UN resolutions compared to the rest of the world invalidates your point.

Israel is just another state full of lying, rapacious people ensconced in a government. It claims to be the Jewish State but you'll get in trouble if you critique it on the basis of being the Jewish State.

Israel is the modern day Vatican, replete with shady Jesuits.

Bravo on your wonderful, but hollow rhetoric. Not only do you validate my first comment, but you fail to refute any of my others.

White supremacist. Top fucking kek. Half of my family comes from Hispanic descent, yet I post here quite frequently. My own dad is fucking brown. How can you say that I am a part of a white supremacist society?

okay Sir 4channer. Good on you, your half-latino. Doesn't contradict my point.

You have no evidence for your assertion.

Look through some conspiracy posts and find all the ones you think promote white supremacism. Link me to them and only then will I consider your point to be true and valid. I've been posting here for quite a while, and your assertion goes against most of the things I've read here. I don't doubt that there are a few anti-semetic posts (and very few if any anti-other racial group posts), but that doesn't say anything overall about the collective subreddit if it is only a small amount.

Since we're being honest, let me ask you a question, do you believe the Jews are God's "chosen people"?

Lol fuk no. I have no interest in religion.

Ok. I'm not a Christian anymore. But the book of Revelation predicts the Battle of Armageddon. Do you know anything about that?

Ok

You've just demonstrated my point.

It's just a little harmless NSA data intrusion or it's full blown FEMA slave camp detention centers.

The grey escapes you.

Not at all, believe me I'm under no illusion that the government is completely morally and ethically sound. I'm against data collection, intrusion and spying on citizens, my point however is especially on this sub when anything violent that involves civilian casualties happens the majority of people here jump up and say it's a false flag attack. That's having a very black and white view of the world and ignoring the shades of gray that hey there are messed up individuals in the world that do messed up things. Now again I'm talking generally about this sub I don't know your personal beliefs in conspiracy theories but you have to put the blinders on to not recognise there are people in this sub that are as you described 'anti-conspiracy' people just in the opposite way.

I agree with your point.

I was trying to illustrate that for this type of thinker, shades of grey always tend to give way to one end of the spectrum.

More often than not the end of the spectrum they find themselves on is the one that they're expected to be on.

Nah, just said that for a laugh. I'm so fucking stupid I don't even have a clue what a numpty is...

Thanks for the links. I'm already quite familiar with Anarchism. Rings true on paper. Nevertheless, it ain't ever gonna happen without another global militant meltdown or else some catastrophic natural disaster that wipes out all of humanity except one Anarchist community who starts the whole human experiment from scratch. There are literally thousands of different languages and hundreds of nationalities and millions of religions and billions of opinions. In any case, there will be war. It's the natural way, because cooperation is ultimately driven by fear of death. Find a way to defeat death, and you might have Anarchism.

Ok. Ignoring "and could of fixed it", look at /u/escapefromdigg's comment, and tell me there aren't more egregious errors in that paragraph.

While the authorities help, as they usually have experience a field in, but ultimately what determines evidence is the results gathered from the scientific method. If the results are accurate, they can be replicated by others. The problem is, conspiracy theorists never seem to be able to back their claims up with evidence that can be corroborated by other people.

This documentary talks about the mechanism of collapse at length. Basically it got very hot, the floors collapsed into each other, the way the building was built caused the supports to twist and bend internally under its own weight and ultimately collapse. Basically it's the specific design of the WTC that was its undoing.