Conspiracy Theorists
Conspiracy Theorists
anti-vaxxers and Holocaust deniers, oh my!
I hereby confess I am an anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier. I am 100% anti-Shemitism and I don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist. I strongly suspect that Jesus was the anti-Christ and want to do an episode called The Grinch that Geoengineered Christmas. Any more labels I can claim?
In this episode, I respond to James Corbett's analysis of the 1997 film Conspiracy Theory and I develop 16 levels of conspiracy theorists based on my own progression. I name 9 rhetorical divisives that end the conversation rather than moving the question forward. I end with another Corbett where he takes the test to see whether YOU are a conspiracy theorist.
James Corbett talks about the 1997 movie Conspiracy Theory starring Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts and Patrick Stewart. He writes, “As silly as the movie may be, it actually makes for a very interesting discussion.” This was held with Big Puff Podcast, who seemed to me to do a thorough job analyzing it for the easter eggs and who characters represent.
James focused more on the meta-messaging and found that it mixed real conspiracies with crazy ones. It normalized the former normalized, inoculating people because they weren’t a secret. And the latter gave a way to laugh at conspiracy theorists, lumping them all together.
This made me wonder, what are the levels of conspiracy theorists? I started creating a metric, based on my own pilgrim’s progress:
Level One: Watched Oliver Stone’s JFK.
Level Two: Read Howard Zinn.
Level Three: Learned about Building 7. Knew 911 was a controlled demolition.
Level Four: Could name 6 coups. Knew that secret agencies don’t serve countries.
Level Five: Entertained ALL conspiracy theories and believed whistleblowers.
Level Six: Developed a way of ‘shelving’ conspiracies based on what difference they would make. If none, I reserved judgment.
Level Seven: Studied the methods of propaganda and manufactured consent.
Level Eight: Realized politicians are puppets and countries are chess pieces.
Level Nine: Read the real history of the Constitution and Civil War.
Level Ten: Did a decade of research leading to the realization that the Bible was inside-out and upside-down, the heroes were really villains, the villains were really heroes, the victims were the aggressors, and the aggressors were the victims.
Level Eleven: Did another decade of research on the money system and central banks, culminating in my book, How to Dismantle an Empire.
Level Twelve: Wrote out metrics for what gives someone or something more or less credibility—if it costs the person or makes them money; if it hurts their career or it gives them prestige; if it’s congruent with other truths and people found to be truthful or if it contradicts itself and other things that are known.
Level Thirteen: Entered the CovidCon and started discerning truth from lies. Developed a new understanding of controlled opposition and psyops within psyops. Found communities of other people figuring it out, a new phenomenon.
Level Fourteen: Learned the history of secret societies and why they matter. Thanks to Matt Ehret and Cynthia Chung, Nefahotep and Frances Leader.
Level Fifteen: Entered the rabbit hole of geoengineering and climate opportunism.
Level Sixteen: Found out the history of the World Wars was inside-out and upside-down, the heroes were really villains, the villains were really heroes, the victims were the aggressors and the aggressors were the victims.
Level Seventeen: I won’t know until I get there. How many levels are there? Who knows?
Michael Hudson and Radhika Desei discuss NATO/ West or Global Majority? I think Michael is brilliant and quote him in my book. But his assumption that Biden is not a puppet and the US is not a chess piece seems like a Level Seven.
Charles Wright gave an account of Mike Yeadon saying that “I didn’t know until after the fake pandemic that virology was lies.” I wrote in a comment, “the second-most powerful force in the universe is someone who changes their mind. The most powerful, that I call The Epiphany Jumpstart, is two people asking the same question who care more about the answer than their egos. Glad to see you have both of these forces going for you!”
Rhetorical Devisives:
The Helen Punt: Named for my mother, it goes, “We’ll never know anything for sure.” Variations: “You can find anything you want on the internet.” and “That’s not in my Bible [substitute authoritative source.] Or, “That’s your opinion and I have mine.” Facts do not exist, and neither does logic.
The SPUArt (spiritual pick-up artist pronounced SPEW-art): “Here, read these six books that say why I’m right and you’re wrong. Get back to me when you’re done.”
The Toxic Tilt: “It’s not personal. Women don’t get this, it’s a man thing.”
The Eeyore: “Everyone with power is corrupt.” “If you know their name, they’ve sold out.” “If they actually spoke the truth, they’d be dead.” “If it changed anything, they’d never let us get away with it.”
Prove It!: Appoints themselves judge and jury with the default view on their side and the burden of proof on yours. Status quo rules!
My Dogma Can Beat Your Hypothecat: Size matters. Certainty matters. Belief is a matter of willpower. Real men don’t ask questions. You’re testing me, you devil. Begone!
The Projection: Comes with a generous dusting of praise and a creamy center of gooey enthusiasm wrapped in a tender crumb that isn’t at all what you’re saying. Puts the object of faux-devotion in a dilemma of being liked for all the wrong reasons. Do you set them straight?
You ‘n Me, Babe: Similar to the Projection, it creates a club of two, in the know, up against the world. Would you dare reject membership in something this exclusive?
All Fun ‘n Games: Why you bringing down the vibe when I’m just funnin’ with you?
Please add your own!
James Corbett also takes The Conspiracy Test, which was even more hokey than I anticipated. It features a reptile with a booming voice and a droid with lip implants, or maybe those are lips with a human implant, who knows?
One section was called “You Can’t Trust a Brain,” leading me to wonder, what can you trust? Authority, of course! The reptile says something about “People who pretend to be 99% skeptical.” Even though the site is about critical thinking and rhetorical fallacies, it applies skepticism only about conspiracy theories, not what the theories are skeptical about.
James appreciates one of the questions which is “What could change your mind about this?” I think that’s an important question to ask. I also think that it’s important to ask, “What difference would this make?” If the answer would be empowering, it bears a closer look. If the answer would make me want to give up, I often shelve it.
For myself, I’m realizing how much progress can be made with access to information and the ability to communicate freely. I have a lot of practice being a lone conspiracy nut. Just the addition of one person who’s asking the same question is exhilarating. The momentum of an audience who isn’t an echo chamber but is moving the discussion forward is something I’ve looked for all my life.
As my new Bible co-conspirator Wildrhody says, it helps to have a detective mind. And I found I share a passion with my Hitler co-conspirator Julius Skoolafish for jigsaw puzzles. I think this is also related.
He said he has a masculine style in doing edge pieces first, then sorting into colors, then shapes. I told him I had the same method and we might have to arm-wrestle for the edge pieces: I’ve been doing aerial—be afraid. Be very afraid. But when I learned he does 13,000 piece puzzles with only two shapes, I just bow to the master.
In the following video (YT only) I compare figuring out the reality in the world to one side of a puzzle, then flipping it to get the reality of the world. Julius uses the same analogy of trying to solve a puzzle you’ve been told is of polar bears but all the pieces are shades of green. You don’t know what it is, but you know it’s not polar bears.
I look at reality as a jigsaw puzzle that requires both the masculine and feminine sides of the brain to solve--the masculine-analytical "does it fit?" and the feminine-intuitive big picture. I apply this to my poster of Mesoamerica Resiste! from the Beehive Collective that uses wind-up chattering teeth to represent tourism and vampire bats for indigenous midwifery. Kennedy's book gives historical context to the 1910 puzzle piece that changed medicine from strengthening the immune system to germ warfare. I examine the mechanisms of manipulation and list three rules of the propaganda playbook: 1) name things the opposite of what they are, 2) it's easier to lie big than lie small, and 3) the best defense is a good offense.
And this is also an early one only on YT, Are We Being Manipulated?
On Unherd, Freddie Sayers interviewed philosopher and writer Paul Kingsnorth on "Why I Changed My Mind in the Vaccine Wars." I use his thesis, antithesis, synthesis model but show why it's backwards and it's the orthodox view that rejects science. I quote Robert F. Kennedy's chapter, HIV Heretics, on how science is not a consensus and tell about my realization, after 50 years of futile arguments, that my mother didn't believe in the existence of facts. I cite Dr. Amishi Jha's definition of science as "a pursuit through a process of understanding what is," and how that relates to peer-reviewed studies. I look at the deeper questions of "are we being manipulated?" and "how can this end well?" I conclude that Paul's example of a person changing their mind is one of the most powerful forces on earth, and hope that #IWasWrong goes viral.
I loved this video, and thank you, new friend, for the "detective" mention! It's definitely a prerequisite for seeking Truth, isn't it. What you said about dogma vs. hypothecat made me laugh out loud. I've not heard that one before. Perhaps I'll further drag you into level 17, kicking and screaming, when I get more involved with telling you about the word "spells." Seriously, why do they call placing letter symbols together to form words, as to "spell," and then call formal writing "curs(e)ive? And, as we "write" the words, we're subliminally told we're "right," because it's a "rite" - a religious custom. All I really want to know is "What the heck is going on??" And, who turned the channel to crazy? Or perhaps I'm just realizing that I always was on that network. Thank you for just being genuine you! Happy holidays!!
P.S. I'd rather be a Conspiracy Theorist than a Complicity Theorist:)
I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist, Tereza. The only people who call the conspiracies "theories" are the ones actually involved in them :)