Worldquest
New Member
People have a right to have, talk about, and agree or disagree with a view.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Unifying all Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter Pineapplejuice
- Start date
Andiferous
New Member
I highly suggest we stay away from 9/11 conspiracy theories this time... 
Worldquest
New Member
MrEsox said:
Exactly the same can be said of mainstream media. Why do people passively and blindly hold on to the mainstream's version of events? The man on the news giving them a version of reality might be right or he might be wrong, but the average person wouldn't have a clue because they just assume that the news is true.
Pineapplejuice
New Member
I agree, maybe we should not get to deep into the 9/11 thing here. Thats another topic.
I am sure many of you guys know about http://whatstheharm.net/
Another thing is something that James Randi often mentions. The story about this cult 40 years ago where 900 people committed suicide. So the more people follow somebody or some idea the more dangerous it can get. Unless the people or ideologies are open to critizim and willing to change their view if evidence is presented.
I am sure many of you guys know about http://whatstheharm.net/
Another thing is something that James Randi often mentions. The story about this cult 40 years ago where 900 people committed suicide. So the more people follow somebody or some idea the more dangerous it can get. Unless the people or ideologies are open to critizim and willing to change their view if evidence is presented.
Worldquest
New Member
Whether or not few or many people believe something doesn't have much to do with danger. If the mainstream media for example warns people about something, and assuming that their advice is correct. and few people pay attention, that can result in danger.
And this all goes back to what I said earlier, which is that most people blindly follow the mainstream media without questioning it.
And this all goes back to what I said earlier, which is that most people blindly follow the mainstream media without questioning it.
Why do some people blindly follow conspiracy theories without questioning it?Worldquest said:
Why do some people blindly follow a book without questioning it?
Why do people blindly follow what their parents tell them to do?
Why do people blindly follow what a policeman or woman tells them to do?
Human trait, more likely to get it wrong. Hence why we have peer review etc in the scientific community. So that it can't be blindly followed, it has to be questioned.
Worldquest
New Member
Actually I was talking about the general public. The general public usually just takes in what the news and the papers tell them about reality and what's going on in the world, without question, whereas people who seek alternative information do so precisely because they question the mainstream media. Most of the general public doesn't do that.
True that, it's a problem which crops up everywhere. I'm kinda repeating what I put before to be honest, lol.Worldquest said:
More scepticism and methods such as peer review are needed, tis why we can rely on science to be much more trustworthy than a newspaper.
Worldquest
New Member
But it doesn't matter how much peer review you have because when you have a general public watching the news and reading the papers, they either trust what they're being told, or they don't and then question it. But most people just blindly believe all of the mainstream media. This isn't about peer review because every individual member of the public is still free to think what they like regardless.
A person who questions the mainstream media and then seeks alternative information / opinions whatever, even if they come across something which may be untrue, is more of an individual than someone who blindly believes the mainstream without question, even if what they're told by the mainstream happens to be true. This isn't about the truth or otherwise of what they're told, this is about the individual questioning what they're told. How much of an individual is the average person who believes the news completely without it ever occuring to them that it might not be true? Not much, I'd say.
A person who questions the mainstream media and then seeks alternative information / opinions whatever, even if they come across something which may be untrue, is more of an individual than someone who blindly believes the mainstream without question, even if what they're told by the mainstream happens to be true. This isn't about the truth or otherwise of what they're told, this is about the individual questioning what they're told. How much of an individual is the average person who believes the news completely without it ever occuring to them that it might not be true? Not much, I'd say.
Look,´s like the 1st US President was also a CTer, eh?
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
then look for the letters:
George Washington to George Washington Snyder, September 25, 1798
George Washington to George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
then look for the letters:
George Washington to George Washington Snyder, September 25, 1798
George Washington to George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798
D
Deleted member 1004
Guest
Going back to the original topic here, I'm willing to propose 6 fundamentals:
1.
I say this on the basis that, taking 9/11 for example, we know the World Trade Centre towers got hit my 2 hijacked planes and subsequently collapsed. The C-Theory then goes on to push false-flagging, pre-set explosives and so on. Another would be Chemtrails, where as quoted ref: Wikipedia,
This would be typical of the "big media cover-up" highlighted in so many C-Theories. Typically the only information that can be cited is from other C-Theory websites. For example, Alex Jones on brain eating viruses. This YT video links almost exclusively to InfoWars forums and other conspiracy videos.
3.
While there aren't exactly many statistics on this, my experience of conspiracy theories has been the religious backgrounds. A majority would see C-Theories as prophesised in the End-Times/Doomsday section of their favourite religious pulp-fiction. Others as quoted either in this or another topic, would feel like flotsam being pushed by bigger forces, to be told "It's all the work of group a,b,c who are being controlled by x,y,z.".
4.
We can see this deep relationship of C-Theories all intertwined when looking at the NWO C-Theory where:
(Key -> = "are controlled by")
5.
The first part would apply where Person A is trying to get Person B to believe the C-Theory they have "undeniable" proof for. An introductory theory could be proposed (a classic would be the explosives used in the WTC). Person A then uses this to enforce their more hard-ball theory regarding the WTC attack to Person B, or to promote false-flag attacks as a commonly used strategy in modern US military history. This in turn could be used to promote a "bigger plan for control" and so on. The latter part here is more for the acceptance of further theories, proving to the already indoctrinated C-Theorist that their current beliefs are accurate, or far bigger than they initially thought.
6.
Finally there is a kick-back to C-Theories. From personal observation, C-Theorists will accept theories up to a certain level that balances out their initial doubts or concerns. Once a top point has been reached (usually government mind control for Chemtrails or Illuminati for New World Order), very few will go further in trying to find answers. It's at this point where people will reject things that seem simply too weird (even for them). Most 9/11 truthers for example wouldn't care much for aliens living on Mars or the Annunaki heading for earth on Nibiru in 2012.
Reaction can be found where Person A is willing to accept Points A and B of a C-Theory. Point C however seems unapproachable to them and highly unlikely to happen in this case. Believers of Points A, B+C will either try convincing Person A that C is the truth with various pieces of evidence to back up their claim, or they will attack Person A suggesting they are against the cause and not a true follower. Déjà vu on religious fundamentalists?
-
1. Each conspiracy promotes a greater scale, loosely hanging from original and readily available information.
2. Because of 1, C-Theorists note the lack of information available for what they suspect as part of the conspiracy.
3. Each conspiracy relies on faith of the believer and their apparent concerns in day to day life.
4. Each conspiracy promotes further conspiracies, either related to the original, or to promote a grander conspiracy.
5. The C-Theorists are lured into this either as an introduction, or a reinforcing of already known C-Theories.
6. Denial of a C-Theory can lead to instability with either belief in other theories, or rejection in group support.
1.
I say this on the basis that, taking 9/11 for example, we know the World Trade Centre towers got hit my 2 hijacked planes and subsequently collapsed. The C-Theory then goes on to push false-flagging, pre-set explosives and so on. Another would be Chemtrails, where as quoted ref: Wikipedia,
becomes
2.
This would be typical of the "big media cover-up" highlighted in so many C-Theories. Typically the only information that can be cited is from other C-Theory websites. For example, Alex Jones on brain eating viruses. This YT video links almost exclusively to InfoWars forums and other conspiracy videos.
3.
While there aren't exactly many statistics on this, my experience of conspiracy theories has been the religious backgrounds. A majority would see C-Theories as prophesised in the End-Times/Doomsday section of their favourite religious pulp-fiction. Others as quoted either in this or another topic, would feel like flotsam being pushed by bigger forces, to be told "It's all the work of group a,b,c who are being controlled by x,y,z.".
4.
We can see this deep relationship of C-Theories all intertwined when looking at the NWO C-Theory where:
(Key -> = "are controlled by")
-
Government -> (a wide range of C-Theories)
Freemasons-> (with their own set of C-Theories)
Illuminati-> (Ditto)
Jesuit Order/Black Nobility-> (Ditto)
Annunaki/Satan/other Supreme Overlord -> (Ditto)
David Icke
5.
The first part would apply where Person A is trying to get Person B to believe the C-Theory they have "undeniable" proof for. An introductory theory could be proposed (a classic would be the explosives used in the WTC). Person A then uses this to enforce their more hard-ball theory regarding the WTC attack to Person B, or to promote false-flag attacks as a commonly used strategy in modern US military history. This in turn could be used to promote a "bigger plan for control" and so on. The latter part here is more for the acceptance of further theories, proving to the already indoctrinated C-Theorist that their current beliefs are accurate, or far bigger than they initially thought.
6.
Finally there is a kick-back to C-Theories. From personal observation, C-Theorists will accept theories up to a certain level that balances out their initial doubts or concerns. Once a top point has been reached (usually government mind control for Chemtrails or Illuminati for New World Order), very few will go further in trying to find answers. It's at this point where people will reject things that seem simply too weird (even for them). Most 9/11 truthers for example wouldn't care much for aliens living on Mars or the Annunaki heading for earth on Nibiru in 2012.
Reaction can be found where Person A is willing to accept Points A and B of a C-Theory. Point C however seems unapproachable to them and highly unlikely to happen in this case. Believers of Points A, B+C will either try convincing Person A that C is the truth with various pieces of evidence to back up their claim, or they will attack Person A suggesting they are against the cause and not a true follower. Déjà vu on religious fundamentalists?
Well in a way mostly yes but strangely enough i haven,´t seen CT considered as deliberate misinformation or pure propaganda here.
It,´s allway lunatics babbling nonesense. Never ever a true detail twisted with some bogus assertions in order to look like a CT.
I,´m not talking about 9/11 or the reptilian shapeshifters.
I stick with the "chemtrailing " stories. It,´s not about Vietnam veterans comming home trying bring Agent Orange spraying into public discourse? Or secret testing of some "anti fallout drug" on unsuspecting civilians in Colorado, Wyoming or New Mexico? Is so completely off reasoning?
Following your suggestions:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. No
but still this seems reasonable for me.