The Perception Of Conspiracy Theory

Original posting, September 2006

A problem with conspiracy theory actually serves to demonstrate how the illusion works. The perception is one of negative (subjective) thinking rather than positive (objective) thinking. So, when a rationale is expressed that does not conform to dogma, it is 'ridiculed' by those who pander to such dogma. It's what they've been told to do. For fear of NOT ridiculing.

That sounds paradoxical. It's not, it's just... pathetic.

First, they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win

Mahatma Gandhi

   The message is one that is then not well-received, even though the message may be accurate. People don't want to hear it. Truth. That's how it works. Simple. It's so easy to engineer and only needs access to the target. It's where the money is and will always devolve to money (people).
  Often a "conspiracy theorist" will argue comprehensively and logically and "make a good case". This will be rebuffed by a simple "rubbish" or something similar without any justification. The so-called "conspiracy theorist" can defend the argument with reason though the simple rebuttal is nearly always successful.
   It is enough to just say: "you're wrong" without any explanation. Why?
   The majority read from the same prepared script and do not write their own. No challenge. Just acceptance.

Rather sad to be a non-thinker

New World Order

   Surprisingly, I've found, there are more people around than you are led to believe who do listen to properly articulated argument. Mostly, those who are such 'conspiracy theorists' provide supportive evidential facts that are interpreted as simply wrong without any counter argument to defend the rebuttal. Sometimes it's clear that a particular issue has not been considered before the negative ridicule is expressed (commonly in 'newspapers' or propaganda 'rags'). The psychological benefit is obvious: plant the suggestion before discussion. It always works when before any rational argument can be voiced. The major advantage is that the mind is closed to anything that is a counter argument. By definition the second response is a defensive secondary reply to the initial conditioning:

The first out of the trap

often wins the race

This could be regarded as misinformation disseminated by those who have an interest in rubbishing sensible comment.

That always fascinates me. This rejection based on nothing and a total disregard of the supportive evidence. Not even listening. Just rejection. And it's all accepted without question.

Even scientists do it!

The Paradoxical Scientist

I can understand why 'dumbing down' is encouraged so much today. It removes the need for the Orwellian 'thought police'. And makes it all the easier to control people by telling them how to think.

Wasn’t George Orwell a 'conspiracy theorist'? That’s never mentioned.

If you fall into the trap of believing dogma, then your reward is that you are not considered a conspiracy theorist. If you don't accept dogma you must be a conspiracy theorist:

Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum)

It all relies on the manipulative psychology of the human condition where people don't like to be ridiculed. But how can a perception of an alternative truth be ridiculed? After all, religion isn't ridiculed. And that is pure belief with absolutely no supportive evidence. That by itself should alarm rather than comfort and I'd rather be a thinking individual with a code in life conduct than the unthinking individual who just accepts without question somebody else's beliefs. Based on nothing more than pure...

belief

When my own 'beliefs' are based on my consciously examined own logic, then my 'beliefs' are no more superior than those of anyone else. Others' views can still be respected (yet fairly challenged) along with my viewpoint. Arrogance must have exclusively winners or losers: the "I don't agree, so you are wrong" attitude.

Any other 'accepted' opinion can likewise be ridiculed. Fairies at the bottom of the garden is regarded as children's fantasy. Folklore. Myth. As a minimum the 'conspiracy theorist' puts forward an argument, but rarely is a well-argued and articulated theory sensibly debunked by promoting a systematic counter or alternative argument intellectually explaining any failings.

Who seriously and objectively 'reads' the tabloid newspapers? Any newspaper or magazine should be read with caution and information or opinion melded into previous 'fact'. As best as can be done, facts should be checked against at least one and preferably as many as possible independent sources. Conflicting subject matter is more easily revealed. The majority opinion doesn't demonstrate truth as sponsors to 'mislead' opinion are used in a numbers game that attempts to 'persuade'.

Seriously. Objectively.

Climate Change

• The entire wealth of information that surrounds climate change is in absolute confusion. The 'thousands' of unnamed or poorly cited 'co-author' scientists with links to sponsors who wish to promote a particular belief, allegedly endorse the arguments of CO2 and the human race being responsible for the problems. In many cases, the arguments do not stand up to critical analysis.

• The Apollo Moon series is still in absolute doubt regardless of NASA (Never A Straight Answer) attempts to ridicule any sensible argument. Be very mindful of any proposed expedition to Mars. It would cost $trillions and any 'hoax' impossible to detect.
  

My experience is that the opinions of the day are most definitely created by newspapers. It seems to be a constant battle between the planted crowd-thinking mentality and free and independent thought.

Big Bang Expanded
Truth

Free thought can be right or wrong.
Planted crowd-thinking is allowed to be only right.

CONTROL

G20 - The Troubles