Conspiracy Theories 101 Series
Part 12 of 12:
The Stigma of Being a
Conspiracy Theorist
Part 1
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities - Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist - Part 1 and Part 2
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017
Updated: July 2, 2022
*This article was updated in July 2022 because the original web pages were too large to be indexed by Google.
*Note: All individuals and organizations receive 3 full days of pre-publication notice.
*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.
*Note: By Jewish people/Jews, I'm referring to Israeli ethnicity, not Judaist believers.
The Peer-Reviewed Literature Against Conspiracy Theorists
Liberal Media Outlets Against Conspiracy Theorists
The Peer-Reviewed Literature Against Conspiracy Theorists
While everyone knows that the media is notorious for denigrating and ridiculing conspiracy theorists, you may or may not be aware that this ridicule exists in the peer-reviewed literature. The supposed highest means of knowledge. And just so you're aware, it's not pretty by any means:
In the last few years there has been growing evidence of a relationship between belief in paranormal phenomena, that is the belief in phenomena which are currently unexplained by science, such as extrasensory perception or psychokinesis, and also the belief in spirits or extraordinary life-forms...and schizotypy. Schizotypy has been described as the prodromal phase of schizophrenia and involves cognitive, perceptual and affective symptoms. [1]
Basically, these psychologists...I mean scientists are saying that if you're a new age believer, you're pretty much schizophrenic. But...here's the BUT. If you're a traditional religious believer, you're okay. Why?:
From the seven subscales of the PBS [Paranormal Belief Scale], only traditional religious belief was found to be inversely related to magical thinking. The positive relationship between paranormal belief and magical ideation was further confirmed... [2]
Traditional religious beliefs are rational? While new age believers are schizophrenic? Christian conspiracy theorists are okay? But new age conspiracy theorists are schizophrenic? Believing in a racist, sexist, and homophobic god is rational while believing in consciousness and ESP is irrational? Wow. Even I didn't think they would just come out and say it like that.
These psychologists are cracked in the head. If you're an average person and think that psychology or psychiatry is a real science...it's not. It's all unfalsifiable ideological junk science (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and The Mental Health Industry in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
And no, I'm not a scientologist. Have you seen the Scientology origin story? Oh dear god. What a joke. But then again, if it was taught at least a thousand years ago, it would probably be the dominant religion today. It's very easy to condition people if you know what you're doing.
If Scientology continues to survive in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if people start seeing L. Ron Hubbard as another prophet after Jesus and Mohammed. Blasphemy. You say that now, but with enough time and conditioning, the dominant paradigm can easily condition you to see it as the truth.
And this was only the first reference. And the stigma against conspiracy theorists continues:
In conclusion this research has identified two related factors associated with conspiracy beliefs – paranoid ideation and schizotypy. As some features of paranoia and schizotypy may serve adaptive functions, then it is perhaps not surprising that belief in conspiracies is very common. However further research would be beneficial to investigate the traits underlying paranoid ideation and schizotypy, in order to gain a better insight into what specific personality attributes make an individual more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. While some degree of conspiracy thinking may be of benefit to individuals living in a complex social world, clearly for some people such thought patterns could become maladaptive, and may lead to antisocial behaviours. [3]
In this case, all conspiracy theorists are treated equally and are paranoid and pretty much schizophrenic. No religious/new age discrimination. At least they threw in the evolution adaptation argument. That was nice of them.
To be fair, some conspiracy theorists are anti-social and openly hostile to non-conspiracy theorists. They just don't get it. The deep state is the enemy. Sigh. This is usually the case with all groups of people. Liberals tend to get along with liberals. And Christians get along better with Christians.
Oddly enough, the same is not true for conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists don't necessarily get along with other conspiracy theorists. While some do, for others, if you don't believe X is a conspiracy, you're the enemy/disinformation. Yes, it's that bad. I'm doing what I can to clean up the movement.
But then again, the same is true for liberals. Try claiming to be a liberal and advocate for nationalism or being against abortion. You'll feel the hostility pretty fast in the liberal camp. In the end, classifying groups doesn't help anyone.
Even if people have 99% of the same beliefs, that 1% can make all the difference. Consciousness is unique for every person. Classifying large groups of people into different mental health states/personality types is okay for a general sample. But it can never apply to an individual.
And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues. This time it's from academic philosophers:
Less obviously, the hair-trigger state of the intentional stance is one of the main cognitive roots of conspiracy thinking...which invariably involves seeing malicious intent in meaningless patterns and coincidences. It also underlies belief in witchcraft and demonic possession. [4]
Umm...what? Whether life has meaning to it or not is a long running debate. Atheist liberals and scientists believe that it doesn't. Everyone else believes that it does. It's an unfalsifiable issue. That means that it will never be resolved in a scientific manner. Conspiracy theorists are a small minority who believe that life (and all actions) has meaning.
And no, conspiracy thinking doesn't necessarily involve a belief in witchcraft or demons. That's more along the lines of Christian conspiracy theorists. New age conspiracy theorists like myself don't believe in that stuff. But I'm open to changing my mind if a demonic possessed witch says that she's demonically possessed and has witch-like powers. It's always good to keep an open mind.
Another issue with academic philosophers being against conspiracy theorists is because of a larger issue. Credibility. In the past, philosophy focuses on the social humanities: ethics, values, justice, politics, intention, the mind, knowledge and such. Today, it's more or less focused on neuroscience. Why? Because there's a strong push for academic philosophers to move away from the social humanities and move into science. Why? For credibility.
Most disciplines don't like philosophy because it doesn't really do anything. Academic philosophers publish papers in the peer-reviewed literature and marvel as professors give talks at conferences. It's powerfully boring.
In the belt tightening era, philosophy departments are being squeezed. Academic philosophers specializing in social humanities are not bringing in new revenue to the schools. And prestige in philosophical circles only goes so far. Hence, the push to be more credible by focusing on the philosophy of science, the brain, and AI.
Personally, I don't really care. I think that all philosophical departments across Western-European (WE) universities should be dissolved. Why? Because academic philosophers are fakes. They don't count as real philosophers.
Contrary to what you may believe, philosophy is not about rich white men reflecting on things in their luxury villas and estates. Nor is it about writing long-winded papers in the peer-reviewed literature. The purpose of philosophy is to solve real world problems like racism, sexism, inequality, corruption, false democracies, special interests, lobbyists and such. And there are very few real philosophers in the world (see The Failure of Academic Philosophy in Part II: Social Humanities).
And no, Noam Chomsky doesn't count. Sorry, but his work in linguistics is just a new version of Descartes' work. And his opinions about global politics are just that. Opinions. Hot air. It's not solving any significant problems that humanity faces in the past, present, or future.
And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:
Our results suggest that belief in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy may be associated with coping with existential threat and death-related anxiety...We suggest that belief in modern conspiracy theories may help individuals attain or maintain a sense of meaning, control, and security. [5]
This quotation is ridicule wrapped in a compliment. While it's nice that researchers can see a strong reason why conspiracy theories exist. They also see conspiracy theorists as broken dolls who can't cope with life so they turn to the illusion of conspiracies. That's more or less the same argument about religious believers.
Religious people can't cope with the truth in a scientific world. Apparently, this argument applies to everyone who's not an atheist, liberal, or scientist. Atheists, liberals, and scientists see the truth of the world. Only religious people and conspiracy theorists have to be studied for their false beliefs. Of course.
As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. Sadly, ideologies have a way of blinding people, particularly atheists, liberals, and scientists from recognizing that they drink from the same Kool-Aid as conspiracy theorists and religious people...the Kool-Aid of ideology.
And just so you know, conspiracy theorists and religious people don't like to be studied like rats. It's demeaning. But then again, that's the point. And the ridicule against conspiracy theortists continues:
The prevalence of misguided and potentially dangerous beliefs makes understanding the psychological origins an important objective. Thankfully, the recent surge in psychologists taking an interest in conspiracist beliefs suggests that progress is being made.
The current findings suggest that people who endorse conspiracy theories more strongly are particularly susceptible to this 'conjunction fallacy' [an error in reasoning]. Taken together with previous research, this provides further evidence that conspiracy theories, similar with other anomalous beliefs, are associated with reasoning biases and heuristics. Thus, research into the psychological antecedents, correlates and functions of conspiracist beliefs may be productively subsumed into the wider framework of anomalistic psychology. [6]
In the mind of psychologists, conspiracy theories are dangerous because the usual conditioning programs aren't working on the public like they use to in the past. More people are starting to realize the GSIG liberal conditioning process as complete bullsh*t and taking action. Psychologists, scientists and the liberal trifecta are doing their best to regain lost ground from conspiracy theorists. Hence, the demonization of conspiracy theorists and their theories.
While conspiracy theorists definitely have a strong bias, so does everyone else, including liberals, scientists, psychologists, and atheists. The ideology that only conspiracy theorists have a reasoning/rationality problem is due to the ideology that liberal conditioning is correct.
It's a shame that psychologists, scientists and atheists can't recognize that they've already drunk the liberal conditioning Kool-Aid. While it's still possible to get out, it's very difficult to show someone the way out if they prefer to stay in their cage of conditioning.
Don't think that liberal conditioning is a cage? That's exactly what the liberal trifecta thinks prior to the 2016 US election. The problem isn't that Hilary lost. It's that the liberal trifecta expected Clinton to win by a wide margin. Instead, Democrats lose the White House, the Senate, and the House.
Just for fun, you should look up the "Trump Won't Win Election - Media Fails Compilation" on YouTube video. It's hilarious.
Anomalistic psychology? Wow. These researchers have balls. Basically, if you believe in conspiracy theories, you have mental health problems. On the opposite side, if you give into liberal conditioning, you're a normal person.
As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. And most liberals, scientists, and atheists are not intelligent enough to realize their own ideologies, let alone go beyond their liberal conditioning.
And remember, psychology and psychiatry have no basis in falsifiable objective science. It's just ideological unfalsifiable junk science. Their opinions have no significant value. And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:
Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. [7]
That's an interesting claim. Are conspiracy theorists anti-science? Yes and no. Yes, there is a general mistrust of dogmatic unfalsifiable science. There's been a lot of garbage ideological science in the past and present, and will continue in the future.
Personally, I'm against recognizing eugenics, male superiority, hair testing, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease claims as science. So in that sense, I'm anti-science. Sadly, all of these junk claims are backed by objective science and taught as factual in the past. That's a big problem for science.
But the reason why I'm also not anti-science is because I believe in objective falsifiable science. Unlike most liberals and scientists, I understand falsifiability and how it applies to science (see Philosophy of Science in Part I).
Mass surveillance, the pearl harbor attack allowed to occur, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, the existence of the NSA, the existence of Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove meeting, government mind control (MKULTRA), the secret interpretation of the US Patriot Act, the CIA's fake vaccination program [8] [9], the lack of WMDs in Iraq, Bernie Sanders being pushed out by the DNC...
...all of it, once seen as delusional conspiracies, are now seen as a factual. Hopefully, I'll be able to add the JFK conspiracy, water fluoridation, climate change, and 9/11 in here in the future.
Does anyone really believe that a plane crashes into the pentagon without any wreckage? Even a direct collision with a mountain at high speed would create wreckage. Does anyone really believe that a building collapses into itself without getting hit?
Privately, most people don't believe the official story. But publicly, they believe it for the sake of appearances and not wanting to be stigmatized. Fair enough. It's disingenuous, but I understand. Conspiracy theorists who accept the label and the stigma that comes with it can shoulder the mudslinging from the liberal trifecta, scientists, and academia so you don't have to.
Unfortunately, no one stops to thank conspiracy theorists once a conspiracy becomes factual. A thank you? For what? You didn't do anything. Yes and no. While the evidence is usually thin for most conspiracy theories, the initial questioning does have some value. Unfortunately, most conspiracy theorists tend to inflate their indirect evidence due to their trip down the rabbit hole. The deeper you go, the more your perception of reality and evidence changes.
The liberal trifecta claims that this is why conspiracy theorists don't believe in climate change. They're conservative and paranoid views won't allow them to believe that it's real. Yes and no. Most conspiracy theorists do let their ideologies condition them (as everyone does). And generally speaking, in their minds, the dominant conditioning is always a conspiracy against them/humanity.
What Christian conspiracy theorists fail to realize is that Trump is now creating/implementing his own white conservative Christian conditioning on the American public and humanity. Is it fair to say that one conditioning is better than others? No. Conditioning is conditioning.
While the conditioning process is amoral itself, the content of conditioning is highly subjective and relevant to periods in time. In the past, visible minorities are conditioned to be slaves. In the past, the public is conditioned to believe that slavery is acceptable, either for religious or scientific reasons.
And what about the evidence? Ideologies and one's perception of reality has a way of slanting evidence in whatever way the person wants it to appear. Is that a problem? Yes. What's the solution?
Unfortunately, there is no solution. What? Anything unfalsifiable (especially religion) can be wrong. And almost all knowledge (aside from physics and chemistry) is unfalsifiable. And if it's unfalsifiable, it can't be proven to be wrong.
Why not? Because it's not possible to rationally prove or disprove unfalsifiable claims. Hence, the loud jeering of Alex Jones coupled with the loud jeering of his detractors. Both are locked in a never-ending unfalsifiable cycle. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.
To be fair to conspiracy theorists, the same is true of the liberal trifecta. In their attempt to vilify Trump and his administration, liberals are definitely stretching what counts as evidence of wrongdoing vs. the appearance of wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, in their desperation to regain their stranglehold on conditioning the public, genuine reporting goes out the window and is replaced with ideological reporting. Again, hilarious and tragic at the same time.
One peer-reviewed article (sorry, I can't find it) says that the lack of peer reviewed articles negating man-made climate change as a significant problem is basically proof that man-made climate change is a significant problem.
Clearly, these scientists are cracked in the head? Eugenics, the superior intelligence of men, hair testing, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease are all published as objective science in the past peer-reviewed literature.
Going against such claims at the time is anti-science. Believing that all ethnicities and both genders are equal in intelligence is considered anti-science in the past. Liberals tend to forget or downplay this fact in their zeal to condition you with climate change.
You need to realize that science isn't getting better. The peer-reviewed literature isn't getting better. Nor will it ever get better in the near future. Why not? Because ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king.
When you perceive that your unfalsifiable ideologies are correct, you feel great. You can shut down other people just with your confidence alone. And since most scientists don't try to falsify their own research, they'll always believe that their claims are correct.
I do my best to present solutions to the peer-reviewed literature problem. But it won't go very far. Why not? Because liberals and scientists don't care what non-liberals and non-scientists think.
Their dogmatic ideologies are king. They'll never accept criticism from those on the outside. For all of the liberals and scientists with open minds and genuine hearts, your efforts are commendable, but it won't change the system.
GSIGs design the infrastructure of media, science, politics, corporations, and all social institutions. There are mechanisms in place to ignore, denigrate, and destroy trouble makers inside the system.
Worse, other researchers can't even prove them wrong. Why not? Because the claims/theories are unfalsifiable. Even when the first researcher comes along and says that it's all garbage, that person will be attacked vehemently. Why?
Because of the ideological bias of the dominant scientists and the dogmatic nature of science itself (see A Broken Peer-Reviewed Process in Part III: Science). It doesn't matter how much the troublemakers point out the errors because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove an unfalsifiable theory to be wrong.
In the end, we're moving down a dangerous path of science with the rise of gene editing and synthetic biology (see Genetics in Part III). May god/universe have mercy on us for our past, present, and future actions in the name of god, science, and perfection.
Again, most liberals and scientists are not on the GSIG payroll and don't have any direct contact with them. They're just useful idiots blindly going along with the GSIG script. While GSIGs are unethical for their actions of control over the global public, useful idiots who serve their purpose indirectly also bear responsibility.
And with that cheery note, we can get to the real mudslinging from liberal mainstream and alternative media outlets.
Liberal Media Outlets Against Conspiracy Theorists
Let's get right into it:
...They [conspiracy theorists] tend to feel powerless, the victims of uncontrollable external forces, and it is arguably the case that belief in conspiracies gives them at least the illusion of control.
...In the final analysis though, does belief in conspiracy theories do any real damage? Isn't it the case that such beliefs are just a bit of harmless fun? Although that may be true of belief in most conspiracy theories, the evidence shows conclusively that belief in conspiracies can cause serious harm...
But proper scepticism does not entail the rejection of all official versions of events but careful rational analysis using critical thinking skills to maximum effect. The assumption that all information from official sources is untrue is a dangerous road to go down. [10]
Powerless? Clearly, these academic professors don't understand conspiracy theorists. I don't know any conspiracy theorist who sees themselves as powerless or not in control of their lives. Why not? Because not giving into conditioning and finding out the truth is an empowering act.
And yes, conspiracy theories can cause harm (like the pizzagate hoax). But the same applies to religion, liberal/feminist conditioning, and science. Religion has killed more people on this planet than any other cause. Liberal conditioning has conditioned men to be manwhores and women to be sluts. The consequences are still being felt today in Silicon Valley and male-dominated corporations.
Aside from eugenics, science has enabled the existence of nuclear weapons. In the end, ideological conspiracy theorists may do some damage, but it's insignificant relative to the damage of religion, liberal conditioning, and science.
And yes, not all official versions are false. This is something that conspiracy theorists tend to ignore. But it's not a lack of rationality that's holding them back. As always, ones perception of reality bends the evidence one way or the other. And the ridicule against conspiracy theorist continues:
These conspiracy idiots are a boon for Bush and Blair as they destroy the movements some of us have spent years building
...The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow. [11]
This quotation really gets into the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. The liberal trifecta believes that conspiracy theorists are lost in their delusional world. On the other hand, conspiracy theorists (including myself) believe that the liberal trifecta is lost in their delusional world. Both sides not giving an inch. Both sides interpreting events in completely different manners. Both sides claiming that they're correct. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.
9/11 is an emotionally charged issue and will likely stay that way in the near future. That means that any evidence against the official story won’t make a significant difference. I'm sure you're aware of scientific explanations of how everything occurs in the official version.
But let's do a time travelling hypothetical experiment. Let's pretend that you give engineers in the past video of the buildings falling on 9/11. You tell them that it’s a video of a controlled demolition and you want their opinion on it. I'd bet money that most or all of them would claim that it's a standard controlled demolition.
Why the difference? Because you pre-loaded the question. You primed that. You asked them what their opinion is on the controlled demolition. You're already claiming that it's a controlled demolition, and they have no reason to disbelieve you, so they watch the video from the perspective of evaluating a controlled demolition. Hence, they would answer correctly and say that it is.
If it doesn't look like a controlled demolition in their eyes, they would be able to recognize that right off the bat. The reason why most engineers today claim that it's not a controlled demolition is a testament to the power of conditioning.
As I've mentioned many times, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. If you understand the human mind and a person's past conditioning, you'll (more or less) be successful in conditioning them (unless they have a strong character and purpose).
This is one of the reasons why the scientific community emphasizes randomness, chance, and coincidence. It's not because it's an objective characteristic of the universe. It's because it's part of a GSIG script. If you believe that your life has no meaning and purpose, you're more likely to accept GSIG conditioning via liberal institutions.
The conditioning of the official 9/11 story and the emotional pain is pre-loaded in the mind of the engineers who watch the towers fall. Most will never publicly go against the official version. Why not? Aside from the conditioning, it's too much to believe. Believing such a thing will throw all of their beliefs in government and institutions in doubt. And that's asking too much of the average person.
The average conditioned person will lie to themselves and blindly believe the lie to protect themselves from reality, that GSIGs intentionally create a false flag as a means to invade the Middle East. This enables Muslim terrorists to cause terrorism in WE countries forever. And this necessitates the need for more war, securing the weapons industry, and slowly eroding the rights of the public.
This is too much for the average person to believe. The more hops in between the planners and the end result, the greater the likelihood of rejecting it. But the same is true for the past tobacco and sugar industry that intentionally manipulate doctors, dentists, regulatory agencies, and politicians. Does the liberal trifecta deny this in the past? Yes. Why? Because the plot is too ridiculous to be true.
And that's what GSIGs are counting on. The bigger the lie, the more likely you'll believe it without question. For conspiracy theorists, this is common sense. For everyone else it's nonsense...until it's proven to be factual of course.
Does the liberal trifecta thank conspiracy theorists after a scheme has proven to be factual? No. And most conspiracy theorists are use to it by now. Contrary to what you may believe, being a conspiracy theorist is a thankless, non-paying job. Aside from Alex Jones, most conspiracy theorists celebrate their small victories in silence.
To be fair, many conspiracy theorists are lost in their conspiracy ideologies. Some of us go too far down the rabbit hole and never really come out. The result is seeing conspiracies everywhere, even under normal circumstances.
A simple example is the 10:10 am display on watch advertisements. If you look at an advertisement for a watch in a magazine, the time will always point to 10:10 am (or close to it). Why? If you're a cracked out conspiracy theorist, it means a freemasonry 10-10 mile radius in DC.
In reality, the hands point to 10:10 because that's the best symmetrical shape for consumers to buy a watch. The hands point in the direction of a happy face. People like to buy things with happy faces. That's it. There's no other reason. Can GSIGs still claim that it's for something else? Yes. And that's disinformation.
Remember, GSIGs don't have any divine power to control people or events. They just have plans, money, underlings, and useful idiots to carry out those plans. That's all. Just because GSIGs implement a plan doesn't mean that it will go smoothly or that it'll be successful. Their plans fail and succeed just like the rest of us (see The Deep State).
To be fair to the liberal trifecta, there are many conspiracy theorists that are lost in their delusional ideological bubbles, where anyone that doesn't support them is their enemy. Anything that goes wrong is because of the proverbial deep state. Anything that goes right is the will of their god. Alex Jones and his associates are an example of this type of thinking.
But for the more rational conspiracy theorists, we see things from a different perspective. Instead of going along with the liberal conditioning, we see though it. Instead of going along with Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, we see through the labels.
For new age conspiracy theorists (like myself) we see through the religious conditioning. Every person has the ability to see through their conditioning. Whether they choose to do so is the question.
There are many interpretations of a single event. There are many parties that benefit from a major event occurring. Real conspiracy theorists recognize this before coming to a conclusion. Religious people tend to see and interpret all major events as being the work of the devil or their god.
Sigh.
The liberal trifecta on the other hand, interprets reality through the lens of atheism and science, where everything is meaningless and random. They don't realize that this interpretation is an ideology. Instead, they see it as factual. Generally speaking, liberals have a very difficult time seeing through their own conditioning. Why? They're not critical thinkers. They accept things without question or meaning.
The liberal trifecta believes that wars and invasions are all done by accidents or taking advantage of accidental circumstances (9/11). In their minds, 9/11 is just a big accident. The illegal US invasion of Iraq is also an accident in the minds of the liberal trifecta.
And that applies to practically any event you can imagine. The UK pedophile rings? An accident. Middle Eastern migrants raping women? A misunderstanding. The liberal trifecta is conditioned to negate personal responsibility from all terrorists and visible minorities. They refuse to believe that almost anything is coordinated intentionally by migrants/immigrants/visible minorities. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
They can't make the leap to GSIGs being the cause because it shatters their ideological foundation of reality, Big Government, Big Industry, and the random and accidental nature of the universe. In one way, you can see it as liberal conditioning preventing/protecting liberals from seeing reality.
The liberal trifecta in the past supports eugenics, the male superiority of men, hair analysis, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat being the cause of heart disease. Realizing this, it's not so difficult to understand that Democrats in the past are the ones who support slavery and are against emancipation.
Why does the liberal trifecta support racist and sexist claims in the past? Because scientists of the past tell them that it's the correct point of view. And not being critical thinkers, they don't challenge such claims.
This is what it means to be liberal today. Giving into your conditioning, not challenging it, and obeying it without question. Sure, there are a few critical articles, but that's just for the appearance of a balanced approach.
It's the same thing for climate change. Contrary to what you may believe, most people in the liberal trifecta don't really believe in man-made climate change as the harbinger of death. They're just going along with it because it's the dominant ideology today. And just so you know, genuine climate change believers have 5 characteristics:
1. Live in an apartment or condo
2. Use electric cars (to the exclusion of gas/diesel cars)
3. Practice a minimalist lifestyle
4. Change their diet to vegan (not vegetarian)
5. Have a maximum of one biological child (but no limit on adopted children).
People who have all 5 characteristics are genuine people. They're still living in their bubble of ideological science and liberal conditioning, but they're genuine believers nonetheless.
Just as religious people will go to their graves believing that the end is near...
Just as conspiracy theorists will go to their graves with their bars of gold and silver...
Climate change believers will go to their graves believing that humanity and the Earth are doomed from excess carbon dioxide and methane.
Hilarious and tragic at the same time. And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:
The film's greatest flaw [Loose Change] is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change. [12]
Sigh. This is what happens when the liberal trifecta doesn't understand conspiracy theorists or the conspiracy theory movement. Hopefully, this entire series will prevent such nonsense from being written (but I doubt it). And the stigma continues:
Aiden Fishman of B'nai Brith Canada described Icke's [David Icke] views as "classic anti-Semitic ideas" and said the booking should never have been allowed.
"It's totally, totally incompatible with the City of Vancouver's role as an open and tolerant multicultural municipality to allow Mr. Icke to speak at a city-owned facility, after we've brought all these concerns to their attention," Fishman told CBC News. [13]
As I mentioned in previous articles, the Israeli government and Israeli groups aren't known for their advocacy of free speech. When any criticism of Israel equals anti-Semitism, that's how you know that ideology is king.
And no, David Icke isn't anti-Semitic. Even a brief look at his work would show you that he believes that people are really consciousness taking different forms (physical bodies). Consciousness is significant for Icke. The body isn't (see David Icke in Conspiracy Theorists). But these claims fall on deaf ears for Israeli organizations. And the stigma against conspiracy theorists continues:
David Icke is a human singularity of idiocy.
Needless to say, there is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that reptilian aliens exist; or that various world leaders, including the Royal Family, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, are shape-shifting reptilian aliens from the constellation Draco; or that there is such a thing as an "Illuminati," a "New World Order" or a "Global Domination Agenda."
Icke is one of many in the cavalcade of conspiracy theorists and delusional oddballs and he has every right to believe what the voices in his head tell him…However, there are three main issues that make Icke rather problematic. First, he has quite a large following. Second, his theories verge on (and some would argue, are blatant) anti-Semitism. Third, he is bringing his lizard show to Australia. [14]
Why are liberal media outlets attacking against Icke? Because people are paying big money (relative to the conspiracy theory movement) to see him. Why? Because they're tuning out of mainstream and liberal conditioning. Hence, liberal media outlets have to attack him. They're desperate to regain their ability to influence the public to a significant degree.
The liberal trifecta doesn't understand that many conspiracy theorists are genuine and telling the truth/what they believe to be the truth instead of bullsh*t sound bites and scripted GSIG reporting.
I'll give you an example, the conspiracy theory of Canada, the US, and Mexico becoming one nation (the American Union). While the liberal trifecta ridicules the conspiracy theory, the WikiLeaks cables provide the evidence:
The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.
"An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,' the document said. "The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative...is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold."
...It goes on to say North America would be well served by implementing a single, continent wide, tariff or a customs union arrangement.
The proposed customs union would eliminate the North American Free Trade Agreement's "restrictive" rules of origin. [15]
It's not that conspiracy theorists are imagining the plots. The plots exist. Liberals are either complicit, incompetent, turn a blind eye, or become useful idiots to GSIGs. Still don't believe me? Take a look at what Nobel laureate and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph E. Stiglitz says:
He said that the monetary fund went overboard in Asia in demanding that the countries ensnared in the financial crisis cut their budgets, arguing that fiscal austerity sometimes extracted too high a price from poor people...
...He said industrialized countries sometimes pushed developing nations too fast to deregulate their financial systems.
Mr. Stiglitz won few friends among economists and policy makers at the Treasury Department and the monetary fund. But his message was greeted enthusiastically in poor countries... [16]
Normally impervious to its critics, the IMF has gone ballistic this time. At a World Bank gathering last week to launch the book, the IMF's chief economist Kenneth Rogof launched an extraordinary personal attack on Mr Stiglitz, accusing him of peddling "snake oil".
Claims that its secretive approach is necessary to prevent investors taking fright are just an excuse for suppressing alternative views, he says. "The result of the IMF's overconfidence in policies that didn't work is that it undermined its long-run credibility to the point where everybody in Wall Street believes the emperor has no clothes."
The IMF made two big errors in the 1990s, in Mr Stiglitz's view. The first was to bow to Wall Street's demand for new markets, by making IMF loans conditional on countries opening up their financial sectors. The resulting rise in speculative capital flows has proved disastrous for fragile economies. [17]
As most conspiracy theorists already know, the IMF and World Bank have no intention of ending poverty or inequality. It's just bullsh*t for the public to believe. It's just for the sake of appearances.
The UN, IMF, and World Bank bow to Wall Street/private banks. And who controls Wall Street? GSIGs. Putting it together isn't rocket science. In the mind of conspiracy theorists, it's common sense. In the mind of the liberal trifecta, it's complete nonsense.
Who's right and who's wrong? It depends on interpretation, ideologies, and ones perception of reality. Again, non-falsifiable issues like social humanities don't have right or wrong answers. There are only interpretations, ideologies, and subjective perceptions of reality.
The liberal trifecta thinking that there are objective answers is delusional as best and complicit at worst. Perception is always the key. It's never just about "the facts." In reality, it's always about the perception of the facts, and the numerous ways you can interpret these facts.
And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:
It's like that poster hanging conspicuously over Mulder's desk on The X-Files. It doesn't say "I BELIEVE" but "I WANT TO BELIEVE." It's less about the given theories or mega-theories but the desire to vest yourself in them, to fork over logic, self-awareness and all your constellations of knowledge and understanding to something that can bind it all together.
...Like believing that some guy died on a cross and turned into wine or that an elephant-headed god mitigates all wisdom in the universe, the twisted consolation afforded by full-bore conspiracy theories is a weird, maybe counterintuitive, maybe totally counter-logical sort of comfort. But a comfort all the same. When you're predisposed to look for them, there are always "powers that be." Maybe it's just a matter of what you choose to believe they are. [18]
The reason why conspiracy theorists do what they do isn't because they're weak broken toys. It's because they go beyond their liberal conditioning and can finally see the bullsh*t that the liberal trifecta serves them.
The reason why some conspiracy theorists believe that GSIGs engage in drug trafficking isn't because they want an imaginary opponent (that would be what climate change believers want). It's because they see the evidence:
Breuer [then US Assistant Attorney General] this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws…Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank. [19]
Two Canada Border Services Agency officers are among five people arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for breach of trust and drug importation offences.
The RCMP alleges that between January 2016 and April 2017 the border officers were importing cocaine through Toronto's Pearson International Airport. [20]
A suspended Hamilton police officer awaiting trial after a 2015 Toronto police raid saw him charged with allegedly helping a drug trafficking organization is now facing 16 new criminal charges.
On Tuesday, Craig Ruthowsky, who worked on the Hamilton police department’s gangs and weapons enforcement unit, was charged with bribery, two counts of breach of trust, two counts of obstructing justice, public mischief, two counts of weapons trafficking, fraud under $5,000, trafficking marijuana, perjury, two counts of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, robbery and two counts of trafficking cocaine. [21]
The reason why some conspiracy theorists don't trust Hilary isn't because she's a Democrat or a woman. It's because a former FBI agent head calls the Clinton family a crime family:
A former top FBI official blasted Hillary and Bill Clinton on Sunday as the heads of an influence-peddling "crime family" rife with corruption and deceit.
James Kallstrom, the head of the FBI's New York City office in the mid-90s, said the bureau's reopening of its probe into Clinton's private email server confirmed that the former secretary of state was never subject to a "real investigation" in the first place.
"The Clintons, that's a crime family. It's like organized crime. The Clinton Foundation is a cesspool...It's just outrageous how Hillary Clinton sold her office for money. She's a pathological liar," Kallstrom railed... [22]
Statements coming from a conspiracy theorist are one thing. Statements coming from a former FBI head are another thing. The reason why some conspiracy theorists believe in government mind control isn't because they're schizophrenic. It's because it exists in the past as MKULTRA (see Resources).
But prior to the disclosure, the liberal trifecta brand such people as tin-foil loony bins. Do they apologize for their ridicule after? No. They just shrug it off and continue to vilify conspiracy theorists. Why? Because their conditioning won't allow them to change the GSIG script. That's how brain-dead most people in the liberal trifecta are.
Yes, there are some conspiracy theorists completely lost in their ideologies (Alex Jones and associates, Eric Jon Phelps, David Icke and such). But such people exist everywhere. There are also a few hardcore conspiracy theorists that go deeper than the esotericism of images. They perceive reality in terms of codes, keys, and formulas. These people are completely lost in their ideologies.
Sadly, conspiracy theorists enjoy pitting people against each other. Their supporters against the supporters of other conspiracy theorists. Listeners/followers of conspiracy theorists should be loyal to the truth instead of individual conspiracy theorists.
If people are loyal to a conspiracy theorist, it's the same as being loyal to a preacher, a pastor, a politician, or a political party. And that will only lead to a disingenuous life. And as you should all know by now, the disingenuous life is not worth living.
Generally speaking, conspiracy theorists believe that America is the last stronghold that the deep state is trying to destroy. They believe that once they destroy the US (economically, socially, culturally, religiously, and financially), it's all over. They believe that it'll be martial law for everyone. No rights for the public. Only mass surveillance for us.
The problem is that none of this is true. In Europe (as a supposed fallen state) things are relatively stable (aside from the bailouts, high unemployment rate, and Catalonia Independence). Aside from Germany and France, free speech is still defended. European political, military, justice/legal systems are some of the best in the world (with Spain being the exception).
And no, the deep state doesn't kill Detroit. Municipal politicians kill Detroit by not diversifying. In the past, Detroit has practically no strength in intellectual property, innovation, and technology. They put all of their eggs into one basket. Of course it's going to fail like a house of cards.
And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:
Once you believe that "one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, (it) suggests that many such plots are possible." With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become "the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system." [23]
Conspiracy theorists don't believe in grand conspiracy theories in order to make sense of the world. They believe in it because that's where the evidence leads them. The reason why some conspiracy theorists believe that the rise of ISIS is intentional isn’t because they’re anti-Islam. They believe it because it's true:
Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, suggested on Sunday that the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which removed Saddam Hussein from power, helped give rise to the Islamic State, even as he said it was "hard to apologize for removing Saddam."
Mr. Blair, whose decision to involve Britain in the military mission made him deeply unpopular at home, told CNN that "there are elements of truth" to the view that the war in Iraq helped pave the way for the Islamic State. [24]
French President Francois Hollande has suggested the rise of ISIS can be attributed to Barack Obama not backing his calls for Syrian air strikes back in 2013.
Since then, France has been victim to a string of savage Islamic State terror attacks and the President insisted too many migrants were being let into the country.
'I don't know what would have happened if we had carried out strikes. What I can say is that we did not carry out strikes, and there's Daesh,' he said, referring to ISIS by its Arabic acronym. [25]
Just to be clear, WE governments influence the rise of ISIS. They don't actually cause it. That prize goes to Muslim extremists in Iraq. Again, WE governments don't have the power to cause ISIS, but their efforts to do so aren't accidental. They're intentional.
If you think that the rise of ISIS is accidental, that's because you've been conditioned by the liberal trifecta. Like almost every other major event in the world, the liberal trifecta wants you to believe that it's accidental. But 9/11 isn't accidental. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't accidental. The rise of ISIS isn't accidental. All of it is intentional. It just looks accidental because the intentionality is hidden.
Sadly, the liberal trifecta will never understand this. They're locked into their liberal conditioning and trust of authority and institutions (aside from the Trump administration). Like everyone else, they can choose to go beyond their conditioning. But they won't.
If you'd like to see more results of liberal conditioning I recommend watching videos from Mark Dice (a conspiracy theorist and associate of Alex Jones). Personally, I believe that Dice is lost in his Christian and conspiracy ideologies about the illuminati in Hollywood.
But if Dice can get Russell Brand, Shia Labeouf, Jim Carrey, John Cusack, Mike Myers, or Randy Quaid (all outcasts of Hollywood) on camera saying that most of his stuff is true...then we have something to work with. And no, Roseanne Barr and Charlie Sheen don't count. One has mental health issues and the other is a drug addict. Not exactly the most credible sources.
Until Dice gets former Hollywood stars on camera verifying his claims, I recommend watching his videos on YouTube just for their entertainment value. And they're pretty funny. You need to see them for yourself. They're only a few minutes long:
Using 'The Force' on Weak-Minded People
Liberals Want Bible Censored – "Anti-Gay" Verses Removed
Incest Embraced by Liberals as "Sexual Diversity" – "Nothing Wrong With It" Say SJWs
Hillary Supporters Endorse SHARIA LAW in AMERICA!
In the Sharia law video, white women support expanding Sharia law in the US. Oh dear god. These women are cracked in the head. This is liberal conditioning at its worst. It's worse than the liberal conditioning of women to be sluts and being proud of it.
As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king, even for liberals who believe that their actions are based in facts instead of ideologies.
Continued in Part 2.
References:
[1] Hergovich, Andreas, et al. On the relationship between paranormal belief and schizotypy among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 45, Iss. 2, July 2008. p. 119.
[2] Ibid. p. 120.
[3] Darwin, Hannah, et al. Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 50, Iss. 8, June 2011. p. 1292.
[4] Maarten Boudry, et al. What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 28, Iss. 8, 2015. p. 1185.
[5] Newheiser, Anna-Kaisa, et al. The functional nature of conspiracy beliefs: Examining the underpinnings of belief in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51, Iss. 8, December 2011. p. 1007.
[6] Brotherton, Robert and French, Christopher C. Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, March/April 2014. p. 246.
[7] Lewandowsky, Stephan, et al. NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Psychological Science, Vol. 24, Iss. 5, March 2013. p. 1.
[8] How the CIA's Fake Vaccination Campaign Endangers Us All. Scientific American. May 1, 2013.
[9] White House: CIA has ended use of vaccine programmes. BBC News. May 20, 2014.
[10] French, Chris. John F Kennedy: 50th anniversary of a conspiracy theory. Guardian. November 22, 2013.
[11] Monbiot, George. 9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns. Guardian. February 20, 2017.
[12] Monbiot, George. A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact. Guardian. February 6, 2007.
[13] Lindsay, Bethany. Jewish groups slam Vancouver for allowing performance by conspiracy theorist. CBC News. September 1, 2017.
[14] Golan, Ori. Don't waste your money to see conspiracy theorist David Icke. Sydney Morning Herald. July 13, 2016.
[15] Hiltz, Robert. Leaked U.S. cable lays out North American 'integration' strategy. Postmedia News. June 2, 2011.
[16] Stevenson, Richard W. Outspoken Chief Economist Leaving World Bank. New York Times. November 29, 1999.
[17] Denny, Charlotte. The contented malcontent. Guardian. July 6, 2002.
[18] Semley, John. The power of conspiratorial thinking. Now Magazine. October 23, 2013.
[19] Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke. Rolling Stone. December 13, 2012.
[20] 2 border services officers among 5 arrested in RCMP drug probe. CBC News. April 27, 2017.
[21] O’Reilly, Nicole. Suspended Hamilton officer arrested by Toronto police is facing more criminal charges. Hamilton Spectator. August 22, 2017.
[22] Edelman, Adam. Clinton family runs vast criminal enterprise: ex-NYC FBI boss. New York Daily News. October 30, 2016.
[23] Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories. Scientific American. August 15, 2012.
[24] De Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko. Tony Blair Says Iraq War Helped Give Rise to ISIS. New York Times. October 25, 2015.
[25] Davie, Gareth. Francois Hollande admitted there are 'too many immigrants' in France and suggested Barack Obama was to blame for the rise of ISIS, claims new book. Daily Mail. October 19, 2016.
[26] Sullivan, Katie. AdRoll Cuts Ties With Infowars, But Google's YouTube Still Driving Revenue For Alex Jones. Media Matters. March 27, 2017.
[27] Above The Law: Bill Maher Claims Trump Having Sex With Ivanka. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, May 7, 2017.
[28] Hamblin, James. Testosterone Wars. Atlantic. June 23, 2017.
[29] Belluz, Julia. I watched Alex Jones give his viewers health advice. Here's what I learned. Vox. June 16, 2017.
[30] Mole, Beth. Alex Jones' Infowars supplements are overpriced, mundane vitamins—watered down. Ars Technica. August 10, 2017.
[31] Maldonado, Alessandra. Here's what's actually in Alex Jones' miracle supplements. Salon. August 10, 2017.
[32] Warzel, Charlie. We Sent Alex Jones' Infowars Supplements To A Lab. Here's What's In Them. Buzzfeed News. August 9, 2017.
[33] About Us. Labdoor.
[34] Beeby, Dean. Squeeze cash from Facebook, Google, say Canadian news media leaders. CBC News. January 11, 2017.
[35] Netflix tax? Trudeau says no to MPs' proposed broadband internet levy. CBC News. June 15, 2017.
[36] CBC right to ask for $400M in additional funding, executive Heather Conway says on Metro Morning. CBC News. November 29, 2016.
[37] Tucker vs Newsweek and its 'Madame President' edition. YouTube video. Posted by: Fox News, November 30, 2016.
[38] Alex Jones: Comedy 101 (video). shawnalli.com.
[39] Kershaw, Sarah. Saudi Arabia Awakes to the Perils of Inbreeding. New York Times. May 1, 2003.
[40] Keeping it in the family. Economist. February 25, 2016.
[41] Malathronas, John. On the trail of the 'Blood Countess' in Slovakia. CNN. October 30, 2014.
[42] Trumbull, H. Clay. Blood Covenant: A primitive rite and its bearing on scripture. 2nd edition. John D. Wattles. 1893. p. 139.
[43] Steinberg, Jeffrey. Arrests prove Stasi-KGB control of Baader-Meinhof terrorists. EIR, Vol. 17, No. 27, June 29, 1990.
[44] Fenrick, W. J. W. Legal Aspects of Targeting in the Law of Naval Warfare. Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 29, 1992. p. 246, 264.
[45] Jasper, William F. UNICEF Wants Your Children. New American. October 31, 1994.
[46] USA: Washington: FBI Agent Earl Edwin Pitts Accused of Spying. Associated Press. December 18, 1996.
[47] Holmes, Jack. Alex Jones Thinks President Trump's Soda Is Being Drugged Each Day. Esquire. September 11, 2017.
[48] Borchers, Callum. Alex Jones says he could support Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson over Trump in 2020. Washington Post. September 15, 2017.
[49] Noyes, Dan. Family of California woman killed in 2015 Paris terror attack sues Google. ABC News. July 27, 2017.
[50] Michelle Carter, who sent texts urging suicide, sentenced to prison term. Reuters. August 3, 2017.
[51] Ailing Man Sues Fast-Food Firms. Fox News. July 24, 2002.
[52] Santora, Marc. Teenagers' Suit Says McDonald's Made Them Obese. New York Times. November 21, 2002.
[53] Marsh, Calum. Why the flat-earth movement is the best symbol of the increasingly diminished value of truth and intelligence. National Post. April 21, 2017.
[54] Altimari, Dave. Sandy Hook Parents File 1st Argument To Supreme Court In Gun Lawsuit Case. Hartford Courant. March 1, 2017.
[55] Cosman, Ben. What the One-Percent Jokes About When They Think No One Else Is Listening. Atlantic. February 18, 2014.
[56] Roose, Kevin. One-Percent Jokes and Plutocrats in Drag: What I Saw When I Crashed a Wall Street Secret Society. New York Magazine. February 18, 2014.
[57] Levinson, Jonathan. 'I felt imprisoned': What neighbourhood watch means in Mexico City's red-light district. CBC News. June 12, 2017.
[58] Goldman, Russell. Parents Who Pimp Their Children. ABC News. October 8, 2007.
[59] McLelland, Euan. Prostitute mother allowed her clients to sexually abuse her own daughters - which drove one to attempt suicide aged SEVEN. Daily Mail. November 13, 2015.
[60] Smith, Jennifer. Father pimped out his own daughter, 16, at truck stops after telling her she might as well become a prostitute when he learned she'd had sex. Daily Mail.
[61] Game of Thrones. Season 3, Episode 5. HBO. 2013.