The Conspiracy Theorist Ideology in a Nutshell

“Natural News” (“See real-time breaking news on: GMOs, fluoride and heavy metals”) posted an astonishing article entitled, “Refreshing rationality: Why NOT believing in conspiracies is a sure sign of mental retardation“.

With a title like that, how can you go wrong? Well, quite easily.

The phrase “conspiracy theorist” is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It’s a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand “Don’t go there!”

First paragraph and we have a Thought Police reference already!

We need a term for unwarranted 1984 comparisons. Perhaps a Space Lizard’s Law: If you live in a country where you can freely read and discuss 1984, then making a comparison to 1984 causes you to immediately lose any argument.

But let’s step back for a rational moment and ask the commonsense question: Are there really NO conspiracies in our world?

Yeah, see, no one’s saying that. Because a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are not the same thing.

The former indisputably exists. The latter? Not so much. And guess which one conspiracy theorists discuss more?

The author cites pharmaceutical company price-fixing, mark-ups, bribes and fraud as examples of conspiracies. But, see, those criminal conspiracies weren’t exposed by conspiracy theorists. They were too busying trying to prove the government brought down the Twin Towers and conducted every mass-shooting. If conspiracy theorists ever bring up real conspiracies, it’s just to justify their more outlandish ideas – ah, look at Iran-Contra! If they can do that, then they must have been behind 9/11!

The front page of r/conspiracy includes stories about real events such as crimes against First Nations people in Canada and the NSA – sandwiched between posts on a Malaysian airlines cover-up (from The Daily Mail), Air Force weather control (“Gizadeathstar.com”) and Bill Gates investing in GMOs (“hangthebankers.com”). Real conspiracies are used to support fictitious ones.

Either way, one conspiracy doesn’t prove the existence of another. Yeah, Richard Nixon was behind Watergate, but that doesn’t prove Bush did 9/11.

Conspiracy theorists don’t speculate about run-of-the-mill criminal conspiracies because their goal is to see deeper patterns within society. It’s not that individuals commit conspiracies; they must believe everything is the result of conspiracies.

As any state or federal prosecutor will gladly tell you, a “conspiracy” is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).

Thus, when three hoodlums plan to rob the local Quickie Mart, they are engaged in a “conspiracy” and will likely be charged with a “conspiracy to commit armed robbery” in addition to the different crime of “armed robbery.” The fact that they planned it with several friends makes it a “conspiracy” worthy of additional felony charges, you see. When these charges are brought up in court, the judge doesn’t look at the prosecutor and say, “You are a conspiracy theorist!” That would be absurd.

Yeah, it would be absurd. Since that’s not what a conspiracy theorist is.

The idea, then, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy is flatly ludicrous. And people who condemn others as being “conspiracy theorists” only make themselves look mentally impaired.

I don’t think anyone has ever, in the history of humanity, claimed that no conspiracies exist. They claim the large-scale conspiracies advocated for by conspiracy theorists don’t exist. This argument is a hilarious strawman: conspiracy theory critics are now reduced to retards who reject the existence of every conspiracy. So much easier to go up against than people who actually argue against specific claims. And thus it is for the rest of the article: endless jabs at the intelligence of anyone who doesn’t believe in conspiracy theorists.

To live in our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy — and yet somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all — is an admission of a damaged brain. Of course there are conspiracies, and when people analyze those conspiracies, they are “theorizing” about what happened. This is, in fact, precisely the job that police detectives and FBI agents carry out almost daily.

Again: no one’s denying that conspiracies exist! No one! This article is arguing against non-existent people!

And yeah, conspiracy theorists are just like detectives and the FBI. Except for, y’know, the fact that law enforcement gather evidence and make conclusions based off of the evidence. Conspiracy theorists arrive at a conclusion – this bombing was a false flag! – and look for evidence to justify their belief – this woman has brown hair, just like that woman at Sandy Hook! – rejecting any evidence that refutes it.

It goes on to cite more proven conspiracies before going off the deep end even further:

Similarly, the corrupt, criminal-minded operators of mainstream science journals conspired in a particularly evil way to railroad Dr. Andrew Wakefield with provably false accusations about the nature of his research into the side effects of vaccines.

Ah yes, this is an anti-vaxxer site too! Note how bar a link to NPR, Natural News’ citations are…itself: just links to their own stories.

We live in a world of such deception and collusion that, frankly stated, it’s hard to find a large institution (such as medicine, agriculture or the war industry) which isn’t involved in some sort of conspiracy at some level.

But, again, those criminal conspiracies and attempts at fraud are not the same thing as the conspiracies advocated by conspiracy theorists, and I don’t doubt that the author knows it.

The pejorative “conspiracy theorist” is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.

Most so-called “conspiracy theorists” are really skeptics, by definition. They’re skeptical of what the government tells them. They’re skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They’re skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what’s in their food. And they’re also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.

Skeptics doubt claims. But they also use evidence to debunk claims. This article’s definition of skeptic seems to be “people who doubt everything everyone ever says, no matter what!” Conspiracy theorists prize their skepticism of the “official story”, but all they did was replace the official story with a new official story. To link conspiracy theorists with true skeptics is absurd.

People who are not skeptics of “official stories” tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.

This one quote is the greatest encapsulation of the conspiracy theory mindset I’ve ever seen.

Don’t believe in conspiracy theories? Then you’re a stupid sheep who believes everything they hear! Believe in conspiracy theories? You’re an enlightened intellectual, for just asking questions is commendable.

This is why conspiracy theorists ultimately cannot be argued with. Their new “official story” is that only they know the truth, and anyone else is just a shill for the enemy, or an ignorant sheep. Any evidence counter to a conspiracy theory is just meaningless propaganda. Evidence? Proof? Clearly a Illuminati plot!

Ironically, they’re a community of supposed freethinkers who…unthinkingly embrace dogma, and act superior because of it.

And again with the personal attacks.

Skeptics of official stories, it turns out, also have the support of history on their side. How many times has it later been revealed that the American people were lied to by the very institutions we were supposed to trust?

Again: the existence of one conspiracy doesn’t prove the existence of another.

There are conspiracies throughout history. Few of them resemble the type of omnipresent conspiracy advanced by conspiracy theorists. Hell, even a conspiracy involving the US President couldn’t last for long.

The correct term for “conspiracy theorist” should really be “conspiracy analyst.” Most of the people who are skeptical of official stories are, in fact, analyzing conspiracies in an attempt to understand what really happened and what took place behind closed doors.

This book will open the minds of those who still have the cognitive capability remaining to grasp it. (Sadly, the injection of mercury into babies in the form of vaccines has damaged so many brains across America that many people are now cognitively incapable of rational thought.)

Isn’t the claim that vaccines cause autism? Ah well, autism, retardation, same difference right?

And remember: the next time someone flings the phrase “conspiracy theorist” in your direction, simply know that they are effectively wearing a DUNCE hat on their heads by admitting they have failed to acknowledge that true conspiracies are rather commonplace.

That’s not merely a theory, either: it’s a statement of fact.

“Fact” means “personal opinion” now, apparently.

So let’s go over a few points here:

  1. One conspiracy existing doesn’t prove another exists.
  2. No one denies actual conspiracies exist! No one!
  3. Conspiracy theorists aren’t skeptics so much as they are cynics
  4. Again, I can’t say this enough: no one denies criminal conspiracies exist.
  5. VACCINATE YOUR KIDS
Advertisements