Nipping the label 'Conspiracy theory' in the bud. ( conspiracy )

submitted by abc_xyz

If you care to raise awareness among friends (not likely coworkers but to each is own), and possibly family members, how do you react when someone says, "Oh that's just a conspiracy theory".

  1. The CIA designed this term in the 60s as part of the JFK hit, to delegate the task of debunking all events since there is no concrete "evidence". (At the risk of sounding even crazier)
  2. Of course what I just said is a conspiracy. Those involved are XYZ, AND by definition that constitutes a conspiracy.
  3. The word theory throws the baby out with the bath water. If you do your research, you will see that what I am talking about is not theory, but events. They are facts which point to a conspiracy.

I believe it is important to squash this label because it is SO pervasive and so effective, that most people stop listening the moment this reaction enters their mind.

I propose a fourth approach, red pilling . This challenges the listener, instead of antagonizing them. "You want to get red pilled?" Versus "If you did your research, you would see that what I am talking about is...". This concept is already overly popular on 4chan and the like, but needs to go more mainstream to counter the blinders-causing "conspiracy theory" label.

How do you deal with people telling you, "oh that's just a conspiracy theory"? Or how would you explain to a friend how damaging this point of view is to their own sense of reality?

acass86

When it comes to conspriacies I think we need to concede a couple of things. Yes, they definitely happen all the time. But which ones are true and to which extent is very difficult to know with any certainty. I've researched many angles deeply and have never walked away sure of it. The problem with conspiracy is that in a system like capitalism where everyone strives to get as much as possible for themselves and power gets consolidated more and more as the system evolves, conspiracy is both inherent and perpetually inevitable.

abc_xyz

Imho, I believe truth comes from having multiple sources in your mind at once, with the background research already complete for more context.

Once this is done hundreds of thousands of times, reliable patterns begin to emerge, like it's expected and you know in your heart what side is dark and what side is light.

Where confusion arises is usually where a new "actor" or event is pushed into the spotlight and we need more info to determine anything of value. Keeping in mind of course, these types of events have been designed to confuse the populace, hence why they are promoted (typo), so it can take years for people to begin grasping what has actually taken place over the last 70 to 100 years.

crankypants15

how do you react when someone says, "Oh that's just a conspiracy theory".

Of course it's a theory, I never claimed anything was a fact. However , there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence to support such theory. Just like the OJ trial. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, but there was little physical evidence.

abc_xyz

I would not bother debating whether OJ did it or not.

I will say this though, the OJ trial was the perfect political psyop weapon to foment conflict between white and black people. Those in control know they must do whatever they can to constantly promote a new enemy, cause infighting and chaos, so that they can continue committing their crimes against humanity, going to war, and profiting from destroying and rebuilding countries abroad.

It might take a few more decades for the truth about our collectiveness to surface amongst the majority of the global populace, but We are all one.

8Ball

The dilemma is to still come off as credible and not be played off as loony after the initial discrediting. You can't convince brainwashed people of anything, since they will make every effort to try to debunk you, and strongly feel that they are right and you are wrong. Or they will have the gall to say you went "too far" when presenting your evidence. They are stuck in their own reality fully unaware of the true facts. It's a catch 22: how are we supposed to speak out about this CIA smear campaign, if doing so only perpetuates it even further.

abc_xyz

Exactly, I might be pushing friends away but I will argue a point if they say something like, I really admire what Bezos has been doing, or what Obama has accomplished. I feel the urge to point out some of the negative things they've done.

Of course I dont think my "friends" would push me away, since I don't do this all the time, just planting seeds every so often. I can sense some of them come around, like say things I said months ago, so that's good. But yeah that catch 22 isdefinitely an obstacle we need to tread lightly over.

Gringojones

Explain to them that a detective is a conspiracy theorist. A detective follows clues to piece together what most likely happened and then presents it to someone who then tries to pick it apart. If the theory stands, it becomes a fact.

The only difference is that some people can't fathom that a person who has not been given the title of detective can do the same type of research on other subjects. "you're not a detective, you can't possibly do that"

ardvarcus

I'd favor the term "truther" as in "someone who's concerned about getting at the truth," except this term was co-opted and rendered worthless by the "9-11 was an inside job" people.