Question

...
Petra Liverani

Do the terms “conspiracy theory/theorist” embody two fallacies: loaded question and strawman?

Loaded question:
The use of the term "theory" tends to imply that the event in question does not have overwhelming evidence showing the crime of conspiracy has been committed.
The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" implies that the person criticising a narrative believes a conspiracy has occurred when they may only be pointing out anomalies without thoughts beyond those anomalies.


Strawman fallacy
Particularly in the case of relevant experts who criticise a narrative from authorities, their first claim will never be that a conspiracy has occurred but that there is something wrong with what is being told. In some cases the critic may not think a conspiracy has necessarily occurred, in others they might but might make no allusion to it while yet in others they may call conspiracy loud and clear. Regardless, it is never their first claim, they are, in the first instance, simply putting forward a criticism that will often be prompted by their professional expertise. Rather than being a conspiracy theorist they are simply a critic of the narrative. In my own case where I see the reality of an event not matching what we are told that is my only real concern. I'm not really interested in the fact of conspiracy or who the conspirators are, my main concern is showing how we have been led to believe something that the evidence doesn't support and how that is done.

asked on Sunday, Jun 05, 2022 08:51:51 AM by Petra Liverani

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

I've been working on what I believe may qualify as the first conspiracy reference for some time now -- https://conspiracysciencebook.com More precisely, it may be the first book that explores the nature of conspiracy/conspiracy theory and how they work.

It includes several chapters focusing on the origins and definitions of the terms conspiracy and conspiracy theory.

So what does conspiracy theory mean? That's all over the map.

I would start by defining it as a theory attributing a particular event, policy, etc. to a conspiracy. However, it is commonly applied to just about any quip regarding conspiracy, even if it doesn't really qualify as a hypotheses or theory.

In the meantime, an army of propagandists have fabricated a slew of derogatory and frequently bizarre definitions. One such definition describes a conspiracy theory as a theory that differs from the mainstream narrative (which is supposedly correct, of course). So what happens when two mainstream narratives disagree with each other (the U.S. governments's coronavirus narrative vs the Chinese government's coronavirus narrative, for example.

To cut to the chase, you wrote, "The use of the term 'theory' tends to imply that the event in question does not have overwhelming evidence showing the crime of conspiracy has been committed."

This is a good definition. It's interesting because it's often used by propagandists, but it can be used by "truthers," too.

An intriguing case is the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Armed with overwhelming logic and evidence supporting their case (ironically, the mountain of evidence hidden or destroyed by the government still counts as evidence), people who believe 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. a "false flag attack") are frequently derided as "conspiracy theorists." The irony is that the government's version of events is a conspiracy theory, too. The big difference is the identity of the conspirators; the government blames a mob of terrorists hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, while the truthers generally point a finger at powerful people in the U.S. and/or Israel.

You also wrote, "The use of the term 'conspiracy theorist' implies that the person criticising a narrative believes a conspiracy has occurred when they may only be pointing out anomalies without thoughts beyond those anomalies."

This is another good observation, that can be made by people on both sides of the fence.

The problem is that conspiracy/conspiracy theory have spawned so many definitions, it's hard to know where to draw the line. Your analysis is accurate in certain situations but not in others.

Under Strawman Fallacy you wrote, "Particularly in the case of relevant experts who criticise a narrative from authorities, their first claim will never be that a conspiracy has occurred but that there is something wrong with what is being told," adding "It is never their first claim."

What is a "relevant expert"? In any case, I think "never" is too strong a word. I suspect conspiracies swirling all around us because there are conspiracies swirling all around us. As I put it, "conspiracy is the handmaiden of corruption."

Every time a hospital or school is blown up in the Middle East, I suspect a conspiracy made in Israel or the USA. I see conspiracy in just about every article in every issue of every major newspaper published in the U.S. because I know how insanely conspiratorial the media are. In the rare case of an honest journalist who actually pens the truth, we'll never know about it, because the article will be fixed by a corrupt editor or nixed by a more powerful official. Alternatively, it might get published, though it is later scrubbed from the internet.

If there is "something wrong with what is being told," that is likely a conspiracy itself, especially if the source has proved itself untrustworthy a million times (e.g. the government, media, etc.).

Incidentally, I coined a new word as a rough synonym of "conspiracy theory" - conspiratalk.

It includes everything from gossip and innuendo to full-fledged hypotheses or theories.

posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 08:57:12 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Dr. Richard
2


The Fallacy of the Argument from Intimidation appeals to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the victim’s fear, guilt, or ignorance. It is used as an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, personally attacking by threatening the victim of being considered morally unworthy. An ad hominem attack. In my experience, the pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

 It is also the Fallacy of Diversion, because it is a means of forestalling debate and bypassing logic by diverting the focus of the discussion and utilizing psychological pressure by threatening to impeach an opponent’s character through his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see X’s argument is false.” The intimidator arbitrarily asserts the falsehood. I think the best way to deal with it was illustrated by Patrick Henry, “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

answered on Monday, Jun 06, 2022 11:59:25 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

Thank you so much, Dr Richard. So many fallacies that apply, the ones you put forward being especially apt!

posted on Monday, Jun 06, 2022 10:39:10 PM
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

The use of the term "theory" tends to imply that the event in question does not have overwhelming evidence showing the crime of conspiracy has been committed.
The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" implies that the person criticising a narrative believes a conspiracy has occurred when they may only be pointing out anomalies without thoughts beyond those anomalies.

This would be a problem with a particular use of the term, but not the term itself (which your title might suggest).

Particularly in the case of relevant experts who criticise a narrative from authorities, their first claim will never be that a conspiracy has occurred but that there is something wrong with what is being told. In some cases the critic may not think a conspiracy has necessarily occurred, in others they might but might make no allusion to it while yet in others they may call conspiracy loud and clear.

This would again be a problem with a particular use of the phrase 'conspiracy theor(y/ist)'. If A states an observation they've made, and B argues, without evidence, that A is a 'conspiracy theorist', then this is a strawman fallacy.

With specific examples, I could update the certainty of my answer - but these are my tentative thoughts.

answered on Monday, Jun 06, 2022 09:03:29 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
1
Petra Liverani writes:

This would be a problem with a particular use of the term, but not the term itself (which your title might suggest).

I think any use of the term is always inappropriate because in the vast majority of cases any person claiming that a conspiracy has occurred will a priori put forward a criticism of what has been presented and is, essentially, a critic of it. Whether the criticism has validity or not is another matter but that validity is what needs to be addressed. Any person claiming a conspiracy without reasons hardly deserves the term "theorist", they are simply a person who has inclinations to believe a certain way and believes regardless of evidence or good reason just as a person who accepts the narrative uncritically without evidence or good reason is inclined to believe another way.

Let's take the opposite number of conspiracy theorist , the term sheeple , applied by those who are critics of the narrative to those who accept the narrative uncritically. Despite thinking that some people accept the narrative uncritically I would never apply that term because it is highly subjective and pejorative and I think critical thinkers need to keep their language as objective as possible.

Can you give examples where you think use of the term conspiracy theorist  is appropriate? And what about sheeple ?

posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 01:57:05 AM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

I think any use of the term is always inappropriate because in the vast majority of cases any person claiming that a conspiracy has occurred will a priori put forward a criticism of what has been presented and is, essentially, a critic of it. Whether the criticism has validity or not is another matter but that validity is what needs to be addressed. Any person claiming a conspiracy without reasons hardly deserves the term "theorist", they are simply a person who has inclinations to believe a certain way and believes regardless of evidence or good reason just as a person who accepts the narrative uncritically without evidence or good reason is inclined to believe another way.

There's nothing precluding you from addressing the validity of a conspiracy theorist's argument, while maintaining that they are a conspiracy theorist.

Let's take the opposite number of conspiracy theorist , the term sheeple , applied by those who are critics of the narrative to those who accept the narrative uncritically. Despite thinking that some people accept the narrative uncritically I would never apply that term because it is highly subjective and pejorative and I think critical thinkers need to keep their language as objective as possible.

The difference is that 'conspiracy theory' is an academic concept, studied and catalogued. Thus, one could reasonably refer to someone as a 'conspiracy theorist', assuming they met the relevant criteria. 'Sheeple', on the other hand, is an insult (and given that it is typically used by conspiracy theorists, can be taken with a grain of salt).

Can you give examples where you think use of the term conspiracy theorist  is appropriate? And what about sheeple ?

Conspiracy beliefs are common - it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that perhaps everyone holds at least one (well, maybe some people don't). But there are those who not only believe many implausible conspiracy theories, but routinely peddle them (either cynically or because they're true believers) - those people can be referred to as conspiracy theorists.

As for 'sheeple'? Hmm...

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 05:03:56 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

The difference is that 'conspiracy theory' is an academic concept, studied and catalogued. 

Oh most certainly but the question arises about why there is so little equivalent study of so-called sheeple  behaviour? We have clinical psychologist and academic, Mattias Desmet, speaking of "mass formation psychosis" and others before him such as Gustave Le Bon, author of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind but very little else, certainly nothing like the body of academic work on the so-called conspiracist mind. Who pays academics?

I don't think that conspiracy theory/theorist being academic concepts necessarily validates them. As someone who would be labelled a hard-core conspiracy theorist by some, the term fits me ill as it does many others. We are not necessarily calling "conspiracy", we may not be particularly interested in the fact of conspiracy, what we are concerned with is the narrative not matching the evidence ... or admittedly in my own case that propaganda is being used in a particular way to make us believe things that aren't true. My interest is primarily mind control. I have little interest in saying "this is the work of conspiracy", my interest is in showing people how they've been led to believe something that isn't true and how that was achieved. And even if the fact of conspiracy is of concern, conspiracy is inferred, it is generally not the primary claim. It is not the critics themselves calling conspiracy necessarily is it - it's those accusing the critics of believing in a conspiracy. Who's calling conspiracy, who's using the term? Why not abolish the term in favour of "critic of the narrative" or similar? If someone claims a conspiracy with no reasonable case then you might call them a conspiracist but leave the word theory out of it because a theory really needs a case to be called a theory, doesn't it?

"Peddle" conspiracy theories. Shouldn't you think about the objectivity of your language? Implausibility is not a good guidepost to judge by because a sense of implausibility often arises from ignorance. When we know more, certain things do not seem implausible at all but rather expected. What always has primacy is the evidence and hard relevant facts ... which are so often pushed by the wayside!

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 07:45:42 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

But there are those who not only believe many implausible conspiracy theories ...

I alluded to implausibility in my last reply to your comment but I'll take it further in this one in the hope you'll be willing to engage in a little Socratic Q&A. I'm not sure if it's really Socratic but it's along those lines at least. I'll use the least controversial example I can think of.

What would you regard as the most plausible scenario of those listed below.

In relation to infiltration of the Wikileaks organisation, US intelligence have:
a. failed in any attempts
b. succeeded in at least one attempt
c. made no attempts to infiltrate

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 09:08:38 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

It looks like my answer is pretty much a duplicate of yours, which I upvoted.

As for what should we call conspiracy theory, or things that might be viewed as conspiracy theory ...

The only solution I can think of is to preface a book or article on the subject with 1) an acknowledgement that the term has widely divergent meanings and applications, and 2) the author's definition(s).

From that point. on, the meaning of "conspiracy theorist" should be further clarified by the context in which it appears. Because propagandists have so muddied the waters, however, an author may occasionally need to put a little extra effort into clarifying some instances of the term.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 09:08:42 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Should I infer, ROTE, that you are not going accept my invitation to go through the elenchus process of showing how (seeming) implausibility is not a good guidepost to judge by? Rationality means being as willing to challenge one's own beliefs as to guide others to see the error in theirs. It's remarkable to me the number of alleged rational thinkers who simply drop out of argument when their beliefs are challenged.

However, my inference could be wrong and I'm willing to be corrected, of course.

So, all on my lonesome (truth-telling is truly a lonesome journey) I shall do the elenchus process (perhaps not entirely correctly) showing how seeming implausibility is not a good guidepost.

The first question, mentioned earlier, is in regard to the infiltration of Wikileaks by US intelligence.
Surely, no one would disagree that the most plausible scenario with regard to infiltration is that US intelligence both attempted to infiltrate Wikileaks and was successful in at least one attempt if not all. Julian might be good at hacking computers but he shows no signs of understanding how infiltration works I have to say. Intelligence may well have made obviously recognisable infiltration attempts in order to mislead WL that they were successfully keeping infiltration out but that would be a bit of a guess.

Second question
In their efforts to ensure successful infiltration, intelligence:

a. Used genuine artefacts that incriminated the US military in the belief their authenticity would be more convincing

b. Used at least some fabricated artefacts for reasons including (but not limited to) the following:
--- with a fabricated artefact they have complete control over its content, the meaning that will be inferred from it and the impact it will have, for example, they can make the artefact look bad superficially but essentially not be as shocking as a real artefact
--- they don't reveal any secrets
--- they can maintain the idea that the US military are good guys really and don't do the kinds of things indicated by the artefact

c. didn't use any incriminating artefacts, authentic or fabricated, because intelligence wouldn't go so far as to use incriminating artefacts to infiltrate, they can infiltrate without needing to do that

Plumping for Scenario b?

Third question
An artefact widely promulgated (wide promulgation is always a clue) in 2010 was the video, Collateral Murder, allegedly showing two US Apache crews firing on Iraqi civilian journalists in the suburb of New Baghdad in Baghdad, with the pretext made that the soldiers thought a largish camera was a weapon. The two Apache crews were not in contact with their ground crew although according to the transcript they were in contact with ground crew control. What is the maximum number of callsigns you would regard as plausible in exchanges in this scenario?
a. 3-4
b. 10-13

Plumping for a.? Aaah, but there's 13! 13 callsigns. Who did all these callsigns belong to when the Apache crews weren't even in contact with their ground crew? See transcript.

This is a link to an opinion on the authenticity of the film expressed by someone who seems to know something of military weapons:
https://www.survivalistboards.com/threads/wikileaks-collateral-murder-video-a-fake.225339/

Of course, the question arises, why make it so obvious? Making it obvious rather than trying to simulate reality as much as possible couldn't seem more implausible, no? But in fact, propaganda works better the other way - it's counterintuitive but that's the way it works - sloppiness of execution actually works better. I know nothing about military weapons or warfare but I worked out the film wasn't what it seemed to be because of obvious signs which I won't go into apart from the obvious anomaly of so many callsigns. Well, who's worked it out? I've looked far and wide and the only other person I can see who worked it out was the person I link to above. It's called "hidden in plain sight". So many things are not implausible at all when you consider the ability for those in power to do things right in our faces, "hidden in plain sight", and have us not see them. It is truly magical. Never would I have suspected that the film was fake until I learnt a number of things that made me suspect it immediately that I realised that Chelsea Manning showed all the signs of being an intelligence agent - they called her an intelligence analyst but what they really meant is agent.

The thing is even when you lay it out as I have above people still don't want to know. Remarkably coincidentally, I was Julian Assange's father's neighbour for 13 years and we were good friends. I tried to tell him about Chelsea and the fakery of the video back in 2019 and he didn't want a bar of it just as others fighting for Julian's release also don't want a bar of it. Even where you'd think it might be helpful, people don't want to know the truth, they don't want their beliefs challenged, they don't want to recognise they have been betrayed.

"It's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled."

   

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jun 08, 2022 11:04:34 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

I'm probably talking to a brick wall here but nevertheless I will make a final comment to recap my argument that implausibility is absolutely not a good guidepost to judge events by because the sense of it can be based on a lack of understanding and awareness which if present would, in fact, make whatever is regarded as implausible not only perfectly plausible but 100% predictable. I know from a very visceral experience of vehemently rejecting a claim based on my own sense of implausibility how wrong it is to judge by that criterion.

I've shown that while it may seem implausible at first sight, the notion that the film, Collateral Murder, being fake is implausible is, in fact, completely mistaken.

It is 100% predictable that intelligence will attempt to infiltrate Wikileaks. And for goodness sake - isn't that their job? There are dozens of intelligence agencies and thousands of agents. Infiltration of an organisation whose purpose is to expose government secrets is what taxpayers money is earmarked for. It's their job and they're very, very experienced and good at it, we know a priori that they will be successful. We see the kinds of tricks intelligence uses today in play at least as far back as the 1600s in events such as The Gunpowder Plot (1605) and The Great Fire of London (1666). These people know what they're doing and somehow - implausible as it may seem - we little people have never caught on even though the methodology is so utterly recognisable.

In order to be successful, an agent's "credentials" will need to be proven and namby-pamby artefacts giving away very little won't work so some juice needs to be provided. Hence, Collateral Murder. A fake film rather than real? Well, you tell me why they'd use real rather than fake.

Big false assumption 1 - power doesn't voluntarily make itself look bad:
One belief guiding the notion that Collateral Murder wouldn't be faked is the belief that power doesn't voluntarily make itself look bad. Oh my goodness is that a belief that gets in the way of truth. Power couldn't care less about looking bad - in fact, looking bad can work for it so very, very well. We must disabuse ourselves of the idea that power tries to make itself look good all the time and therefore wouldn't fake anything that made it look bad. That is such a misleading belief. Power is only interested in maintaining power and to that end it's prepared to do pretty much anything ... and if it can do the same old thing over and over again and have it work for it ... then why wouldn't it? If it ain't broke ...

Big false assumption 2 - power wouldn't give the truth away underneath their propaganda:
The perps wouldn't tell us the truth, "hidden in plain sight" style, underneath the propaganda. Yes, they would because we see evidence of it every which way you turn. I doubt anyone would accept that as a truth hypothetically, you'd really have to see it for yourself, no? ... and you do if you allow yourself to. What do I know? Very, very little but I do know some of the fundamentals of psyops and one of the key elements is telling us the truth underneath the propaganda. How did I figure out the video was fake? It simply started with a glamour shot of Chelsea Manning that looked as if it had a lot of money behind it. "Hmmm," I thought to myself, "That doesn't seem consistent with 'treasonous leaker of important state secrets.'" Now the perps didn't have to showcase Chelsea in magazine glamour shoots and not-unsympathetic interviews with Juju Chang, did they?  They could have hidden her away discreetly after her alleged 7-year prison sentence but no, they flagrantly showcased her because regardless of anomalous appearances on mainstream news shows and magazine glamour shoots virtually no one will catch on. No one ... except little 'ol nobody me but not even Julian Assange's dad who was a frequent dinner guest in my house for a number of years will listen to me. Not even him. It is rather soul-destroying I have to say but then I understand why. I do understand but it's still soul-destroying.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan

So, ROTE, any conspiracy theories you'd like to run by me you believe are implausible and I'll let you know whether I think there's any evidence and reason that shows they're actually perfectly plausible and, in fact, correct. A series of events I do accept as reported are the moon landings, an astonishing achievement, and it pains me that the more conspiracy-minded people out there reject them as false because it only serves to create a sense that "conspiracy theorists" are complete idiots. I have to admit I find the way people reject the moon landings highly irritating because if the job of the truthteller isn't hard enough as it is, having moonhoaxers peddling that nonsense (OK, I'll use your term) only makes it that much harder.




[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jun 11, 2022 02:36:32 AM
...
1
Trevor Folley writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

I find the juxtaposition with sheeple both interesting and useful.

When a label is given to someone's identity, rather than a description of their behaviour, there is a generalisation and therefore likely to be a distortion.

It implies that they are a conspiracy theorist rather than they have doubts about the dominant narrative around a particular set of circumstances.

Likewise, saying someone is a sheeple implies that it is their identity rather than they have confidence in the dominant narrative surrounding a particular set of circumstances.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 06:20:18 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To Trevor Folley]

Very good point, Trevor. Yes, the more objective people are the less they use labels I think.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 07:49:43 AM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

"I think any use of the term is always inappropriate ..."

I don't agree, though I understand your rationale. When used properly, "conspiracy theory" is perfectly fine term. Many, if not most, of the problems are simply baggage tacked on to it by propagandists. And if you replace it with another item, the propagandists will attack that term as well.

I think any serious conspiracy theorist or author should spend some time analyzing the origins and meanings of the term and be very careful about the terminology they use. In many cases, they can probably find better terms.

When someone calls me a conspiracy theorist, I may cringe a bit because I know they're probably using the term in a derogatory manner. I similarly cringe when people call me a liberal, even if I am a liberal on the broad sense of the term. The L-word has simply been so demonized by propagandists, on top of which I think most American liberals do have some problems. I have nothing in common with the Seattle liberals I'm surrounded by, for example.

Conspiracies are historical events. In that spirit, I tend to think of myself as a conspiracy analyst, conspiracy scientist, or simply a student of history.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 07, 2022 10:14:20 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

I'm not sure how "critic of the narrative" can be used against people except perhaps the use of the word "narrative" which perhaps can be changed to something else but I'm not sure what.

I'm not claiming there is no validity to the term "conspiracy theory", my main point is that it's a claim that the critic doesn't start with if ever they make it, they start with a criticism of the narrative and conspiracy is inferred or not. I think it's much more accurate and meaningful to start with the primary claim rather than the inferred claim. If you don't, OK, but I do. In another comment you ask what I mean by a relevant professional. What I mean is a professional whose expertise relates to the event in question. So, for example, a fire engineer might say, "steel frame buildings don't come down by fire." To call this person a conspiracy theorist is simply absurd. Firstly, there is zero claim of conspiracy in that statement and secondly they are making a claim based on their professional expertise and that is the claim that needs to be addressed. I stand by "It is never their first claim" because what I mean by that is that there needs to be reasons to think that a conspiracy has occurred and those reasons are the first claim. Conspiracy is always inferred. If it is not inferred from evidence and reasons then it is a nonsense claim.

Also, as I say, I'm not particularly concerned with the conspiracy part, my aim isn't for any seeming conspirators to be put on trial for lying to us, I'm more concerned that people recognise the modus operandi of the psychological operation that is the type of conspiracy normally under discussion and thus simply reject it. All people have to do is not believe the lies told to them, they just have to immunise themselves. I'm like the health practitioner who isn't focused on the cure but rather prevention. I don't identify as a conspiracy theorist and I don't want the term applied to me but according to how people see conspiracy theorists I'm an arch conspiracy theorist because there's few who see more conspiracies than I do but I don't actually see those conspiracies as "conspiracies" per se but a particular kind of mind control operation that requires only that we immunise ourselves against it. That is all that's required, we don't need to get caught up in who to blame, who to point the finger at, we just need to recognise what's going on and call it out - or if we choose to, not even call it out, simply don't believe because it's not true. OK, sometimes we may need to point the finger but unlike other disbelievers of the narratives we are told, I don't think we need to point the finger nearly as much as they think we do ... but that's another discussion that I don't wish to go into here.

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jun 08, 2022 02:09:26 AM