- This topic has 150 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[MOD: Kindly desist from merely insulting your debatees.
If you will not debate, which is the purpose of these forums, you will have to leave them altogether. ]
___You want to impose ur filth Glenn, i despise your ilk. Do i want to play roundabouts with you? Heh! Just want to give people pointers, you carry on being what you are.
G
Sorry for posting that accidentally, going to play chess, which my daughter and i are exceptional, natural players at. Will check to see if you’ve posted but can’t be bothered waiting for ur verbal delights.
Of course you are exceptional, Demeter. After all, you assert it.
Good grief, you are tiresome.
Dawg posted some very good points to you – here: – September 11, 2022 at 11:08
How about actually showing us how brilliant you are by demonstration, with a few straight answers, instead of this rather infantile, Trump-like bragging? With Trump-like poor English to boot?
I’m starting to suspect you are either simply trolling, or merely rather simple. Either way, I feel quite sorry for you.
Test:
“Error: your reply cannot be created at this time.”
Hey, I call for peace here!
Aunty D is OK, let’s all be nice, eh? I’m too busy to join the actual debate at present.
Aunty D, I don’t like dismissing people as filth, nor as stupid. People vary, all organisms vary, diversity is nature’s lesson. Yes, the powerful sometimes conspire, but they stab each other in the back far more often, ‘cos that’s what type of people they are, they wouldn’t have got to be powerful otherwise. There are systemic reasons that everything is as bad as it is:
– “If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere, doing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
– But the line between good and evil passes through every person’s heart, and who is willing to destroy a piece of their own heart?”
Solzhenitsyn.
Glenn_nl, I find conspiricism hugely frustrating and tiresome, but I try to keep reminding myself that it’s a reaction to entirely justified suspicion. I don’t think it’s a helpful reaction, but then many reactions aren’t, eg. in small, socially connected groups, anger is an effective adaptive reaction to mistreatment, but in big, complex, impersonal societies it usually makes matters worse.
They are explanations of the world related to magical thinking.
The concept also serves to discredit uncomfortable truths, which generates a lot of both legitimate and illegitimate bullshit.
Finally, they are a catch-all for information, even if it is true, that does not fit into your mind-set or that you are not able to digest. In other words, a way of dealing with personal limitations in order to understand something complex without too much loss of self-esteem.
It is a potential source of violent radicalisation of individuals and groups.
And it is a ready label for what is labelled to be censored without question.
Hey guys, this is my last post here, and I’m writing it in the hope that it might be of some use to improve these forums; forums that I abandon because I consider them destructive and toxic, at least for me.
In another thread, references to a website were “unfortunately” censored,[*] as it was “a shame for Germann that he hadn’t stuck to his field.” This appreciation implies that only psychologists can talk about psychology, that only doctors can talk about medicine… and affirming that explicitly or implicitly is a fallacy.
Clark has asked a question: what is a conspiracy theory?
Since conspiracy theories are born in people’s minds, they are transmitted to other minds, whatever is perceived by other minds, and even the meaning of “conspiracy theory” supposes the interpretation of a mind, as a psychologist I can give my opinion without being censored —I hope.
In my opinion, the answer is twofold (not quadruple as I poorly expressed in my previous message).
On the one hand we all know what it is. When we think of a conspiracy theorist, I think we all share to a greater or lesser degree the meaning of that expression. Be that as it may, I am not interested in the linguistic aspects although they partially fall within my field.
Wikipedia masterfully explains the psychological aspect of the issue (with very interesting references to scientific literature on the subject). I can hardly [
overcome] surpass, in a forum writing in a foreign language and in a hurry, the meticulousness and rigor of those who have carefully edited the article on Wikipedia, so I refer you to it.The second aspect of the term refers us to sociopolitical origins and purposes. In this sense, as I have said in another thread,
the unproven and often simplistic hypotheses of reality defended by “conspiracy theorists” are a burden for individuals who try to do our best by seriously and rigorously investigating the entrails of the beast
And
the “conspiracy theorists” are extremely useful for the System, because in addition to moving a lot of money, they hinder our investigative work and keep us entertained by attacking and defending each other [of the accusations of being a CT]
And most of the energy that we waste defending ourselves against such accusations (or accusing others) will be time that we will not be using to make this not just a better place, but a minimally habitable place. Certainly we don’t have time to spare, rather we lack…
So the socio-political implication of conspiracism is that reality gets muddied, and the more crazy theories there are about an event, the more difficult it is for honest researchers to find any certainty amid the sea of junk information… The investigator runs the additional risk of being trapped by non-existent plots.
AND IF sincere investigators end up finding something real —even a real plot—, the public will mostly tend not to believe him or even check his arguments or his sources, because “he’s a conspiracy theorist”.
And this is how the truth sinks. And the circles of power, metaphorically —and sometimes visibly—, laugh.
And then it happens like in this forum, where some conspiracists converge with people obsessed with conspiratorial interpretations of reality -in others, via projection (in its psychological sense).
And suddenly one fine day I arrived asking about Wikispooks and I ended up talking to Clark. So with the best of my intentions —albeit ill-advised in form and place— I put legitimate questions on the table, and automatically you all think things that don’t exist about me or about what I think or about what I never named.
And this is how a hard core of users of these forums, trying to be rational, fall prey to conspiratorial thinking, not believing in it, but looking for everything even where it is not. And so, a part of reality remains invisible to some users. Paradoxically, trying just the opposite of what they get without realizing it.
But it does not matter that I am writing this, because you will have a reply to my message. And I would have another reply. And so on as time passes, and yes, the obvious sociological fact of power, the elites and/or the Transnational Capitalist Class do and undo as they please. And that is not a conspiracy.
So both the conspiracy theorists and the theorists of conspiracy theorists who seek to refute them are doing the people and the truth a disservice, and they are doing the few a great favor.
If you want to know serious studies on conspiracy theories, my colleague Chris has a website dedicated to it. If you are able to remove your blinders, perhaps you will realize your mistake and learn something.
If your mental labyrinth dressed in rationality or your egos do not allow you to advance, I am very sorry, I cannot do more here (if in other places as in fact I do and will do).
And as I said, the victim is not me, but the truth and ourselves. Even if I am wrong in everything I say, I would not be wrong in stating that the truth continues to sink before our cloudy and tired eyes.
So take or leave this message. My commitment has always been and will be with the truth, not with my ego. I’m just trying to help. But I have come to the conclusion that I have nothing more to say or contribute here, among other reasons because of the suffocating and hostile environment, and as I said, because of your obsession with conspiracies and conspiracy theorists.
This forum demoralizes me and consequently demobilizes me. And that’s a dubious luxury I can’t afford because I have a job to do.
Today I have reviewed these forums going back over 6 years. I see I’m not the only one leaving. I say this with sincere sadness, I beg you to believe me.
If there are no changes in these forums, only the hard core will remain. And if that core is not freed from certain mental traps, you will end up accusing each other of conspiracy theorists or, to kill boredom, copying and pasting crazy conspiracy theorists and making fun of them (in many cases it is not for less). But you do not expect to be of any help to this dying world like this. And if that happens, I humbly suggest that these discussion forums be clearly disassociated from the Craig Murray website.
Below is Germann’s website on conspiracy theories and other useful resources in my opinion:
-> COMPACT [Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories]
-> The power of unreason, a visionary document (2010) on the dangers of violent radicalization derived from conspiracy theories, a parallel danger to the repression that there will be against what is considered by the power a “conspiracy theory” (a “wildcard” expression, changing, like “terrorism”) especially when we begin to see social unrest in the streets.
Let’s not be pawns of power.
Take good care of yourselves, guys.
Fraternally,
César (aka Oscar)
Thank you for your contribution, Oscar. It seems like an honest expression of your impression of these forums, and it will contribute to the ongoing review of moderation policy on constructive dialogue.
* To respond to your claim about censorship:
– In another thread, references to a website were “unfortunately” censored, as it was “a shame for Germann that he hadn’t stuck to his field.”
Nothing about Germann was censored here. There was a call to moderators to remove links to anti-vaxx sites, which the follow-up indicated should include Germann’s site, but that request was not endorsed or carried out by moderators. The comments and links you posted remain as they were when you posted them.
Best wishes for your pursuit of truth,
Mods.
P.S.: Germann’s ideas and reasoning may of course be discussed here, but all respondents are respectfully advised that any further discussion should not refer to, nor reflect upon, Oscar’s reasons for posting those links. More generally, if all contributors could please avoid personalising criticisms, it will reduce the likelihood of others taking personal offence and ease the burden on moderation. Thanks.
Oscar, I tried to post an emotionally supportive message for you, but a site security measure called Wordfence blocked it and it was lost. Sorry, I’m feeling too unhappy to try again. It also happened with a similar post to Natasha a couple of weeks ago.
Best wishes to you.
How the commercial system encourages conspiracy theory:
Conspiracy theorists often claim that “crisis actors” are used. Well, the fossil fuel industry has been buying exactly such services:
The Troll Army of Big Oil – YouTube (~16 minutes into a ~22 minute video):
– “Or how about that time New Orleans utility Entergy hired a PR firm to pay literal actors to attend a public hearing, and voice their support for a new gas fired power plant? Crisis actor, much?”
Crowds On Demand, Wikipedia:
– “In May 2018, the outfit made New Orleans news as word got out that energy firm Entergy had used “astroturfing” tactics – paid actors – to speak at a March city council hearing in support of a proposed controversial natural gas power plant, and in opposition to solar and wind power.[13] [14]”
The infected blood scandal inspired a conspiracy of government and medical staff to hide the truth about thousands of patients being infected with HIV and Hepatitis.
The Post Office scandal needed a conspiracy of managers and directors to hide the truth about how the computer system was littered with programming errors, and instead blaming sub-postmasters.
The VW emissions scandal was the result of a conspiracy of managers and directors of a car manufacturer to fake the exhaust emission data in order to preserve market share.
These are just three examples of recent conspiracies, which have hidden the truth from the general public.
If these can happen in plain sight, how is it that conspiracy theorists are still treated (by the MSM and their sycophants) as those with a mental illness?
Who knows what other lies are currently being told to cover up similar corporate and governmental incompetence around the world?
Fat Jon, yes, those were all conspiracies. So far as I know, conspiracy theorists never mentioned any of them.
– “Who knows what other lies are currently being told to cover up similar corporate and governmental incompetence around the world?”
Well; the relevant conspirators, obviously. But the mode of thought called conspiracy theory is utterly powerless to expose any of them because it’s a faulty way of thinking; it is very vague about who the conspiracy consists of, it expands the supposed conspiracy at need and without limit, and it attributes almost supernatural powers to the supposed conspirators.
– “If these can happen in plain sight, how is it that conspiracy theorists are still treated (by the MSM and their sycophants) as those with a mental illness?”
Because doing so is made plausible by the logical absurdities promoted by conspiracy theorists, and thus provides cover for actual conspiracies.
The so-called MSM is probably the biggest promoter of conspiracy theory, e.g. for decades the corporatocratic media got away with indulging climate change denial. With supreme irony, climate change denial is the work of a genuine conspiracy which claims that climate scientists conspire to promote a specific fake result.
@Clark
“Because doing so is made plausible by the logical absurdities promoted by conspiracy theorists, and thus provides cover for actual conspiracies.”
So basically, conspiracy theorists are responsible for hidden conspiracies? A very strange and ironic theory, don’t you think?
Which conspiracy theorists were responsible for hiding the conspiracy of senior police and right wing politicians/media tycoons to put the entire blame for the Hillsborough deaths on Liverpool fans?
How about the conspiracy of silence by senior BBC management when it came to reporting the sexual exploits of Jimmy Savile and under-age girls?
Don’t forget the conspiracy by senior police and right wingers to show that Jeremy Corbyn was a raging antisemite, and therefore have him removed from the party leadership.
And a similar conspiracy by Keir Starmer and his acolytes to have Julian Assange extradited to Sweden on charges of rape there, in order that he could be shipped off to the USA and a death sentence much more easily.
I believe it is the dog whistle policies of the anti theorists who are creating the necessary climate for successful conspiracies by those in positions of power. They do this by encouraging the population to consider all conspiracy theories as the utterings of nutjobs.
– “So basically, conspiracy theorists are responsible for hidden conspiracies?”
No, not directly responsible. But conspiracy theory, as a phenomenon, provides cover. It’s very similar to the situation surrounding anti-Semitism. There’s definitely a phenomenon, extreme distrust and hatred of Jews, which has been given the rather inappropriate label “anti-Semitism”, and if that phenomenon didn’t exist, it wouldn’t be possible to smear critics of Israel as “anti-Semites”.
My paragraph above is deliberately extreme to illustrate my point. In the real world, prejudice against Jews and Judaism gets mixed with criticism of Israel, because (1) many people contribute to the discussion, some of whom are prejudiced, and (2) each individual has many thoughts, some of which carry prejudice that said individual has so far failed to recognise.
You’ve produced another list of conspiracies, none of which has spawned any conspiracy theory, and none of which conspiracy theorists helped expose. This illustrates the impotence of conspiracy theory.
– – – – – – – –The root of the confusion is in language. The word “theory” has two quite different meanings, which get conflated with each other. One meaning is “framework for analysis”, as in gravitational theory, music theory, harmonic theory, the theory of evolution etc. The other usage is in common language, where the word “theory” serves as an umbrella term for proposition, hypothesis, unproven accusation, suspicion etc. Sometimes the conflation is deliberate, for instance when religious creationists dismiss evolution as “just a theory”.
But all theories are not equal. To be useful, a theory must be testable. For instance evolutionary theory requires that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones, so if fossilised rabbits were found earlier in the geological record than their less complex ancestors, evolutionary theory would fall. Conspiracy theory fails this test of whether a theory is a good one, because when challenged, conspiracy theorists will just expand the conspiracy and/or extend the power of the (forever unidentified) conspirators. Thus, during the lockdowns, we saw people gathering outside hospitals accusing doctors and nurses of being murderers.
– “I believe it is the dog whistle policies of the anti theorists who are creating the necessary climate for successful conspiracies by those in positions of power.”
I think that both phenomena – lack of exposure of conspiracies, and conspiracy theory – lie in the nature of hierarchical authority itself. Conspirators use their power over subordinates to suppress exposure of the conspiracy; e.g. Jack Straw attempted this over Craig. Conspiracy theorists simply assume that this applies in the case of the suspicion they wish to promote, and further assume it applies in precisely the way that they say it does, leading to very arbitrary hypotheses.
I don’t know what you mean by “anti theorists”. I very much agree that “dog whistle” narratives help to conceal conspiracy, but those narratives need genuine phenomena to exploit, e.g. Corbyn couldn’t have been smeared as anti-Semitic without the existence of the genuine phenomenon called anti-Semitism.
If you don’t know what I mean by “anti theorists”, maybe this article will help?
Sorry, no, it doesn’t help.
It’s a poor article. Firstly, it omits the most obvious and important journalistic requirement, which is to link to the document it describes so we can judge for ourselves.
It also has a particularly weird paragraph in it:
– Expert from the Antisemitism Policy Trust, Full Fact, Tell Mama, the Community Security Trust, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), the Global Network on Extremism and Technology and the political analyst Arieh Kovler produced the guide, which provides examples of eight common conspiracies proliferating in the UK.
It’s ambiguous and must contain a typo; either “Expert” should read “Experts”, or “and the political analyst…” should read “and political analyst…”. If I assume the former, I’d say that I don’t like the look of this list. If I assume the latter, I’d say that I don’t like the look of Arieh Kovler’s employment history. In either case, I see no transparency about who was chosen to advise MPs, nor how.
On the other hand, the examples given in the article show that certain MPs were susceptible to or have swallowed doses of conspiracy theory.
I believe that reply to be missing the point entirely. Whether deliberate or accidental I cannot tell.
MPs are intelligent people, otherwise why have them representing tens of thousands of constituents?
Intelligent people should be able to read theories of conspiracies and make their own judgements about which are well researched and which are over-hyped nonsense. They should not need reports warning them to beware of false claims.
The whole point of the anti-theorist activity is to shut down free expression and discussion of global events. If this can be done by just labelling everything they don’t like as a ‘conspiracy theory’ spread around by ‘conspiracy nutters’, then once that put down is fed into the psyche of the average person, just that two-word label will be enough to make people ignore the discussion/article/proposal; and the people who have contributed to it.
This means that the idea of faked moon landings, chemtrails, a flat earth, will be used to discredit any theory which those in power do not want discussed in a free and open manner. Notice how the word ‘scandal’ is substitued for conspiracy in the current media frenzy over the contaminated blood and sub-postmaster cover ups? Those who would prefer to shut down all discussion over conspiracies by powerful people to hide the truth from the general public, wish to reserve the word ‘conspiracy’ for the ramblings of the mentally unstable.
Just wait until AI takes over the ‘conspiracy theorist’ narrative. By that time, it will be too late to reach the truth.
– “Whether deliberate or accidental I cannot tell.”
Oh dear, Fat Jon. You seem to be suggesting that I must be either an evil agent of some conspiracy, or a sheeple. i.e. either morally or intellectually inferior to yourself.
Discussion is soon going to become impossible unless you can regard and treat me as an equal. For me, it has with that remark already become unpleasant; I’ve had too much of this stuff already, providing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does really exist and can overwhelm hospitals, that PCR tests don’t overwhelm hospitals, that vaccines aren’t a plot to kill us all, and that buildings can actually collapse without explosives.
– “MPs are intelligent people, otherwise why have them representing tens of thousands of constituents?”
Sorry, logical fallacy; the former does not follow from the latter. People get to be MPs because they stand and subsequently get elected; no more, no less. In the UK, election success usually follows from standing for the most popular party in a given constituency. Then there’s charisma. Getting elected is no guarantee of intelligence; indeed the article you linked to highlighted particularly stupid assertions by MPs Nick Fletcher and Andrew Bridgen, red herrings that shouldn’t be wasting parliamentary time.
– “The whole point of the anti-theorist activity is to shut down free expression and discussion of global events.”
Oh dear again; conspiracy theorists always deny the phenomena of conspiracy theory, claiming it’s just a ruse to suppress their fearless truth-telling.
– “If this can be done by just labelling everything they don’t like as a ‘conspiracy theory’ spread around by ‘conspiracy nutters’, then once that put down is fed into the psyche of the average person, just that two-word label will be enough to make people ignore the discussion/article/proposal; and the people who have contributed to it. “
Ah. So you’re above average, are you?
Fat Jon, as a matter of interest, is there a particular flavour of conspiracy theory you like to promote? You’ve already ruled out “faked moon landings, chemtrails, a flat earth”, but are there assertions, promoted with the very same techniques, that you wish to defend? If there are, I bet they’re anti-science in some way, deflecting blame and attention away from politicians and onto scientists and/or various technical professionals.
Still, you are helping me refine my own understanding. Whether something constitutes conspiracy theory depends how something is argued rather than what is being argued.
So, arguing that “fifteen minute cities” disadvantage those who wish to make even short journeys by car is not conspiracy theory, whereas arguing that it’s an “international socialist concept which would cost us our personal freedom” (and part of the Great Reset, supported by the great scientific climate fraud) is conspiracy theory.
Well thankyou for sorting out my quandry over your missing of the point.
I can now conclude it is very deliberate.
As for your fishing expedition to try and get me to reveal which conspiracy theories I like to promote (and presumably to enable you to destroy them), all I can say is “nice try”.
You admit that discussion is going to be impossible unless I can regard and treat you as an equal, but to do that you would have to stick to the points being discussed, and not try and combine ad hominem remarks, non-sequiturs, and erecting strawman arguments all in one post.
Therefore, I am quite happy to agree with you. Discussion is impossible.
