Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I had forgotten how funny Bob Newhart was. I was recently reminded of him and started looking at his videos.

In the following skit, he shows a perfect zeitgeist or mindset of the innocence people had about conspiracy theories a few decades ago.

 

There's a reason the Deep State was able to grow into the monster it is today. It took root on soil that was as innocent as newborn babies.

I wonder what Bob would think about it all today.

No matter. Treat yourself to some laugh-out-loud funny (once it kicks in about halfway through).

And, yes, I was busting a gut watching it.

Michael

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I had forgotten how funny Bob Newhart was. I was recently reminded of him and started looking at his videos.

In the following skit, he shows a perfect zeitgeist or mindset of the innocence people had about conspiracy theories a few decades ago.

 

There's a reason the Deep State was able to grow into the monster it is today. It took root on soil that was as innocent as newborn babies.

I wonder what Bob would think about it all today.

No matter. Treat yourself to some laugh-out-loud funny (once it kicks in about halfway through).

And, yes, I was busting a gut watching it.

Michael

Very funny!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 10/25/2016 at 2:34 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Conspiracy theories might pose an intellectual challenge but they are divorced from reality, though using elements of reality to create them.  A conspiracy theory is a lie, a lie is any attempt at faking reality.  Those people who create them are liars, and many fit into Rand's category of the Witch Doctor.

Protect yourself by using Reason, Rationality, Logic, and the epistemic standard of Objectivity, folks.

Better, identify the conspiracy theorist or conspiracy theory and reject outright.

The start of this thread makes an appeal to excommunicate from your life people who are judged to be a conspiracy theorist. Judged by whom? No answer is forthcoming in the post.

Notice the call is not to debunk conspiracy theorists. The call is not to present evidence. The call is not to look, listen and think it through. The call is merely to accept what someone else calls "lies" and "Reason, Rationality, Logic, and the epistemic standard of Objectivity." No examples. Just labels. Then the call is to avoid the conspiracy theorists and what they say.

Blank it out. Who are you to decide, anyway?

 

Let me give a spoiler. This is argument from authority, not objectivity. And it is certainly not Objectivism.

What do such people want? Going from their arguments, it is easy. Just listen to our "betters," accept their words as truth, excommunicate and refuse to look at contrary information and we will all be good Objectivists.

Heh.

Good authoritarians is more like it. And, of course, sheep.

 

Here is a far, far, far more rational explanation of conspiracy theories from Victor Davis Hanson, with a string of one busted mainstream lie after another from people who yell "conspiracy theory" to counter others who ask questions and complain about things that don't make any sense.

How To Create Conspiracy Theories

How To Create Conspiracy Theories › American Greatness

AMGREATNESS.COM

---

It is easy to birth conspiracy theories. All that is required is chronic government stonewalling of reasonable requests for transparency. Then add in high officials serially lying under oath…

The first three paragraphs bear outlining. First a quote:

Quote

It is easy to birth conspiracy theories.

All that is required is chronic government stonewalling of reasonable requests for transparency. Then add in high officials serially lying under oath, along with the blatantly unequal application of the law. Institutionalize arguments from authority of politicians and bureaucrats who refuse to adjudicate arguments empirically.

Include the weaponization of investigatory and intelligence bureaucracies. Finish with the transformation of an obsequious media into a mouthpiece of the state. And presto, you end up with a skeptical, cynical public that learns to believe the very opposite from what it is told by elites.

Now let's outline, shall we?

To make a conspiracy theory take off in the culture, here's what our "betters" need to do.

1. Have the government constantly stonewall requests for transparency. Note, this does not mean deny the requests with reasonable explanations. This means ignore them.

2. Have high officials constantly lie under oath with no consequences.

3. Apply the law in a blatantly unequal manner without any reasoning or explanation other than "I said so" at root.

4. Have politicians and bureaucrats constantly use arguments from authority and refuse to deal with facts, even when facts are shoved right in their faces.

5. Weaponize law enforcement against law-abiding citizens and weaponize the intelligence community against the same.

6. Make a not-stop yapping media a propaganda arm of the state. And make all such media outlets say the same thing at the same time all the time.

 

Our "betters" not only need to do this, they have been busting their asses doing nothing but this for the last few years.

Hanson goes on to list all of the busted people and institutions. They got busted not because someone said so. They got busted because a standard of REASON was applied to their pronouncements and actions. REASON was applied to identifying what they really did as opposed to what they said. This evidence of this REASON is in courts of law, on videos, in documented articles, in outright confessions, you name it.

One case after another.

 

Yet, to the opening poster, we are supposed to ignore all that, blank it all out, as we have fun scapegoating "conspiracy theorists" because they are not as awesome as we are, the true practitioners of reason, rationality, logic and objectivity. And why are we the true ones. We say so, right? Or somebody says so. An important person, maybe.

And observable reality? Hell. Reality no object.

And we can call that  Objectivism.

Yeah, right.

 

I, for one, want no part of that kind of Objectivism.

Do not count me among you because I am not.

I have an enormous contempt for a shell game like what these idiots do just so one can feel superior.

These idiots fiddled while Rome burned. Some evil people unleashed a bioweapon on humanity and the self-proclaimed betters instructed us that was not so. Some evil people stole a presidential election in the most blatantly observable ways possible, then stonewalled those who said, "Look what they did. Look at this. Look at that. Look at this. Look at that," followed by mountains of evidence. Our "betters" said this was not so. And they had no ears and no eyes. I could go on, but you know what I mean.

Believe me, I could go on and on and on with one example after another just like Victor Davis Hanson did. But why bother? My purpose here is not to persuade. It is to reject irrational impostors.

I'm not using the "most people are like this" kind of rhetoric.

I fucking lived this. And so did you. There is a solid record of it right here on this forum.

 

My idea of Objectivism starts with observation, not proclamations. 

What an idea...

If anyone thinks basing reason on observation is against what Rand wrote, they need to reread what Rand wrote.

Bah...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry for being grumpy.

I reread the opening post and it irritated the piss out of me.

I am fine with disagreement.

People who know me know I am all for disagreement. That's how you hone ideas and work them out. And some people, including me, take time to come around to seeing reality contrary to was believed before when a perception of reality is strong and longstanding.

I get it and I'm very patient with this. 

Also, I've been that way for years.

 

But I am no longer fine with pissy sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit and peer pressure when the world is going to hell and that bullshit is part of the reason it is. Why is it part of the reason? Because people who are that way don't even see it. 

Pure gnosticism. Reality doesn't matter to them. Only their mental replacement for reality matters to them.

 

What is the difference between discussion of thorny issues and sanction of the victim?

Great question.

We all have to define this difference for ourselves one day.

I finally defined mine. 

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sorry for being grumpy.

I reread the opening post and it irritated the piss out of me.

I am fine with disagreement.

People who know me know I am all for disagreement. That's how you hone ideas and work them out. And some people, including me, take time to come around to seeing reality contrary to was believed before when a perception of reality is strong and longstanding.

I get it and I'm very patient with this. 

Also, I've been that way for years.

 

But I am no longer fine with pissy sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit and peer pressure when the world is going to hell and that bullshit is part of the reason it is. Why is it part of the reason? Because people who are that way don't even see it. 

Pure gnosticism. Reality doesn't matter to them. Only their mental replacement for reality matters to them.

 

What is the difference between discussion of thorny issues and sanction of the victim?

Great question.

We all have to define this difference for ourselves one day.

I finally defined mine. 

Michael

 

No apologies necessary.

 

I would ask: 

If based on your perceptual apparatus and including valid general premises, you have heard and seen enough to make a wide integration based on them are you not valid to take it as a working conclusion? Indeed, if there is some evidence (possibly circumstantial) then you have every right to say something is possible... more evidence... then plausible, more then likely, then more likely than not likely..etc., no?

 

 

The error with those who have swallowed the term "conspiracy theory" as it was fed to them (I can't recall who coined it first but ... it was not unmotivated) is that they focus on the particular subject matter or conclusion of the wide integration from percepts, i.e. WHAT  has been concluded from them, and raised that above the percepts and the process... to the point that in and of itself it stands as evidence for or against that conclusion.

[The propaganda narrative word twisting machine has succeeded in creating a shield for any group or association of people to use against suspicion of their wrongdoing... "what us conspiring? that just proves you're nuts"]

 

The fallacious argument goes something like this:

Sure, perceptual evidence and wide integrations are fine, but if they give rise to a suspicion that people are conspiring actively or passively or acting in concert due to incentive structures (or in any other way) that CONCLUSION itself brings into question the wide body of evidence and your process in bringing it all together.

Here they are not saying they have other evidence to rebut your conclusion, they make the bald assertion that any conclusion which theorizes a conspiracy is invalid.

Implicitly, hell, explicitly, this requires the bald assertion that people never conspire, which is patently and laughably false.

 

Nothing is closer to "begging the question", rationalizing a preheld unmovable conclusion, dogma, or as you say pure gnosticism, than the idea that BECAUSE you have arrived at a particular kind of conclusion THAT invalidates it.

 

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

The error with those who have swallowed the term "conspiracy theory" as it was fed to them (I can't recall who coined it first but ... it was not unmotivated)...

S,

I know.

And Lance deHaven-Smith, a leftie college professor who wrote a famous book about conspiracy theories also knew when he was alive. Lance deHaven-Smith died in November 2022. He had been diagnosed with cancer.

The left used to go nuts because the good professor would not bash Trump and repeat the conspiracy theories about him. They used to wish he would shut the hell up and sit down. Now that he's gone, they can finally ignore him for real.

 
 

On 7/27/2018 at 5:39 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There's a book I suggest called Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith. He's a Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. It's an eye-opener, not so much about this or that specific conspiracy theory. It's about the manipulated attitudes the public has had when an actual conspiracy has been unfolding right before their eyes. They are not given answers. They are induced to shut down their own questioning.

The term, "conspiracy theory" itself, as used currently, was engineered by the CIA to get people to stop questioning the Warren Report on the Kennedy assassination. Mr. deHaven-Smith presents the memo the CIA sent all over promoting this idea and requesting government press offices act accordingly . (The actual name "conspiracy theory" for this concept entered the public lexicon a little later. It does not mean identification of some idea, which it had meant when sporadically used before. Instead, it became a rhetorical device to get people to stop talking about something on pain of public ridicule.) 

That's right.

Back in the early 60's, the CIA sent a memo all over hell and back telling people to intimidate others through mockery when they questioned the official version of the Kennedy assassination. The official memo does not use the exact phrase "conspiracy theory." But the memo described how the concept was to be used to a tee. And shortly after the memo started taking off, the CIA adopted the exact term "conspiracy theory" and gleefully used it to shut people up. What's more, the CIA has used it often ever since.

After a while, the term morphed into meaning many more things in addition to questioning the Kennedy assassination. It began to mean anything the CIA--then the intelligence community, the toady press, and the ruling class in general--did not want people to question.

 

it worked, too. It allowed ordinary control freaks in the population--even Joe Six-Packs-- to become instant experts in an argument without the need to know anything. They could just say "conspiracy theorist," turn off their brains and feel superior. What's more, with mockery, they could make people laugh. And it always feels good when you are the one to make people laugh.

(A fundamental part of human nature is to laugh at mistakes when committed by dumbasses.  )

 

Go reread the opening post of this thread and you will see a perfect example of how this term has been used over the years. The term was engineered to perfection by the CIA to dupe people, especially those hungry for unearned status. They found it to be an excellent weapon to gain precisely that while turning their brains off.

Don't think this was evident only in Objectivism. You can find these kinds of non-thinkers in almost all religions, ideologies, sciences and on and on.

It's amazing what the intelligence community has gotten away with by using simple human nature over the years. Here is just one example and I will pipe down.  

Look at how many wars America fought that were sold to the public under false pretenses (later busted) by relying on plain vanilla non-thinking useful idiots to do the mocking and intimidating for them.

 

btw - Get Lance deHaven-Smith's book if you are interested. It's a real eye-opener. And the funny part is that nobody has been able to call Lance deHaven-Smith a conspiracy theorist and get it to stick. Instead, they throttled his public exposure and now just ignore him.

I bet his work is going to come back into the light before long.

Michael

[Marc]

Hey Peter, what are you hearing about Obama's personal chef drowning off the paddle boat in Martha's Vineyard?

Was Obama the second paddler?

Were the Obama's on the island at the time?

Would love your take on things if you have time.

 

 

[Peter]

5 hours ago, Marc said:

Would love your take on things if you have time.

I hereby dub thee Murky.

Alexa? Why did the alligator cross the road?

Because he wanted to be bayou.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you want a deep dive into Conspiracy Theory land, here is Royce White interviewing Alex Jones on his Call Me Crazy podcast. Royce is a famous basketball player, now podcaster and political candidate, currently running for 2024 Senator in Minnesota. Royce has been endorsed by Donald Trump and Steve Bannon in a previous campaign against Ilhan Omar. The local Republican Party worked against him during the primary and he did not make it. So he's giving a run for the Senate a shot.

Now, if you go to Steve's Rumble account for the War Room, Royce's podcasts appear there alongside Steve's shows. And that is where he just interviewed Alex.

Royce and Alex covered many topics, some I am sure will seem fringe and out there by those who believe the Predator Class narratives as their default.

Hell, I, myself, found some hard to believe. But others are spot on.

It's all good in my world. You will never detect hidden crimes without first speculating about them. And, after what I've seen over the last few years, nothing from the conspiracy theorists seems crazy to me anymore.

At least not crazier than what the Predator Class has actually been doing (releasing a bioweapon on the world, then serving it poison as a cure, stealing a presidential election in a blatant manner, endless wars for profit, pushing the trans agenda to the point of destroying iconic product brands, promoting drag queens reading to young kids--and performing for them--in public libraries, and on and on and on.

 

Alex gives a history of how he got his start, including the Bohemian Grove thing, all the way up to his vision of God at the end. Both of them did not run from anything, Pizzagate, 9/11, Obama as a tragic character created by the CIA (intelligence community) and so on. And, of course, more ordinary things like the Covid bioweapon and so on.

Alex emphasizes that his predictive powers--why he gets so many things right years before they happen--comes from reading the words and publications of the people who later commit the atrocities. They publish their intentions before they commit their actions, often in peer reviewed publications. Alex reads these things and takes them at their word.

Anyway, enjoy. It's a wild ride, even for me at times.  

 

Royce White with Alex Jones

RUMBLE.COM

---

Royce White Podcast 'Please Call Me Crazy'

What's more, I like these kinds of discussions.

The world needs more of them, not less.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

During the night, Alex Jones got his account on X (Twitter) reinstated.

Elon Musk did a poll where about 2 million people voted on this. It wasn't even close: 70% voted for Alex to be reinstated.

With the Tucker Carlsen interview, the reinstatement of Alex's account, Joe Rogan's support of Alex, Steve Bannon, and so on, it's fair to say that many, many people are noticing the fact that a huge portion Alex's observations have been true over the decades.

Alex constantly baited the elitists in mocking terms while he made those observations. And that stung since vanity cannot condone mockery. Exposure and mockery are the real reasons elitists hate him.

 

If you get the time, go back through this thread and notice the smug sanctimoniousness of people who belittled Alex and the people who listened to him. They claimed they were defending reason when their blind faith in their own superiority was their driving urge. That drive erases all facts from their minds when those facts do not align with the fake core story they tell themselves about their own awesomeness.

In fact, I believe a lot of self-proclaimed Objectivists are attracted to Rand's ideas because they can feel superior, not because they are devoted to reason. When they get in their silly self-aggrandizement mode, reason is the first thing to go out the window with them.

Do you want proof?

This entire thread is about people with an irrational mindset that makes them believe in conspiracy theories.

Well, Scott Adams has been keeping a list of conspiracy theories these smug silly people believe in. Scott calls them hoaxes.

And why do (or did) these smug silly people believe in these hoaxes? Because they were fed these conspiracy theories by the mainstream press.  Who are the mainstream press? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Fox News, and on and on.

Also, the nature of the conspiracy theories themselves allow these smug silly people to feel superior.

Take a look at the list.

 

At one point you have to look at these smug silly people and ask them if they are ashamed. They sure as hell should be. Don't they see themselves?

They are about as immoral as immoral gets. And they are far more irrational than they accuse conspiracy theorists of being. They have pure collectivist garbage mindsets. Guess who they believe are in the top class of inherent betterness? Why them themselves, of course. Surprise surprise...

What a disgrace. What a fucking joke these people are.

 

They speak in the name of reason and forget the first rule of reason.

You have to use your brain.

They don't. Using your brain starts with observing things. These people don't observe anything. They listen to proven liars tell them what they want to hear and they blindly accept it on faith in a way that would make any backwater preacher envious. The lies makes them feel good, so they keep going back to the same liars for new lies when the old lies get busted.

And they crow about how this makes them better than others.

That, to them, is "a philosophy for living on earth."

What dorks...

 

I do it differently.

And I know many of you do, too.

We observe reality and start from there.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am going to crib from Russell Brand here.

In today's world, do you know what the difference is between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy?

About six months.

 

Michael