Thoughts regarding the premises behind conspiracy theories in politics

[Saint Frankenstein]

It sure has.

Mmhmm.

 

[Heyo]

David Icke.

... is an author, i.e. he makes his money from people who buy his conspiracy theories (double meaning intended).
Or does he? Are there so many people interested in his stuff that he can comfortably live?
My conspiracy theory about him is that his work is partly financed by the CIA. Like so many conspiracy theories, they have invented it or promoted it. It is a relatively cheap way to reach their goal.

 

[Estro Felino]

... is an author, i.e. he makes his money from people who buy his conspiracy theories (double meaning intended).
Or does he? Are there so many people interested in his stuff that he can comfortably live?
My conspiracy theory about him is that his work is partly financed by the CIA. Like so many conspiracy theories, they have invented it or promoted it. It is a relatively cheap way to reach their goal.

I totally agree with you.
I have reached this conclusion when I understood the word gatekeeping.

 

[Secret Chief]

... is an author, i.e. he makes his money from people who buy his conspiracy theories (double meaning intended).
Or does he? Are there so many people interested in his stuff that he can comfortably live?
My conspiracy theory about him is that his work is partly financed by the CIA. Like so many conspiracy theories, they have invented it or promoted it. It is a relatively cheap way to reach their goal.

As it's coming from you, I can't actually decide if you're taking the wet or not. The CIA are covering up weather manipulation and gene therapy programs then?

 

[Heyo]

As it's coming from you, I can't actually decide if you're taking the wet or not.

You're a smart cookie, not believing stuff random people say on the interwebs is applied critical thinking.

The CIA are covering up weather manipulation and gene therapy programs then?

They would, if they could.
What they can do, is promoting people who spread false information about how weather manipulation and gene therapy works.

Together with the stated goal of Casey and the known projects of CIA public opinion manipulation, it isn't a far step to believe they also would finance any other organizations or people who spread conspiracy theories. But, of course, I have no proof.

 

[Secret Chief]

You're a smart cookie, not believing stuff random people say on the interwebs is applied critical thinking.

They would, if they could.
What they can do, is promoting people who spread false information about how weather manipulation and gene therapy works.

Together with the stated goal of Casey and the known projects of CIA public opinion manipulation, it isn't a far step to believe they also would finance any other organizations or people who spread conspiracy theories. But, of course, I have no proof.

Phew, I thought you'd gone over to the other side, you cheeky reptile.

 

[Stevicus]

Primarily because in one case there is no evidence for or against, while in the other the majority view has lots of evidence for it. Also holding such a view is harmful, as one's beliefs are severely affected.

I'm not sure what you mean by "severely affected" in this context. I don't see that such a discussion should be that traumatic.

But one pattern I've noticed is that any conspiracy theory which might make the US government look bad leads to angry and unbalanced reactions, whereas theories about other governments or things not of this earth generate different kinds of reactions.

I've noticed that the standards for evidence can often change, as conspiracy theories about Russia or China might be instantly and uncritically believed, whereas if it's about the US government, then people go into "mobster lawyer" mode where they challenge and pick apart every single piece of evidence and every single utterance, handwaving it all away while saying "You have no evidence," just like Al Capone in The Untouchables

For people who seem to feel that it's their life's duty to argue against conspiracy theories about the US government, this is how they come across:

They speak more like someone desperately trying to get someone off the hook, not someone honestly looking for the truth. That seems to be the key difference that I can discern.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since many of these theories involve politics, which deals with realm of human governance and the total complex of relations within human society, one can make certain observations about the commonalities of human politics which can be discerned throughout the ages. Some of these observed commonalities might include:

- Most human societies are ruled from the top down, with a few decision makers at the top directing or guiding the lives of the many.
- Power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely).
- Wealthy people tend to want to increase their wealth, or at least retain what they already have.
- Businesses are in business to make money.
- Wealthy and powerful people hold greater influence over a given society than the common people.
- People who do bad or immoral things tend to want to conceal their actions from others.

In my opinion, these observations are self-evident and can be found throughout history as key elements in politics and human governance.

The other commonalities I see in conspiracy theories:

- there are no coincidences. Things with major effects can't just happen without someone directing them to happen.

- the ability of a single rogue actor to affect the course of history is negligible. Any purported "lone gunman" needs significant help by many people.

These are the elements that run contrary to a lot of history.

They're also the elements behind a lot of the appeal of conspiracy theories: the idea that we're safe from random chance and individual bad actors, and the major threats to us are all orchestrated by grand conspirators who, while they may be evil, have a rationality to their actions that can be figured out and accounted for.

 

[Stevicus]

The other commonalities I see in conspiracy theories:

- there are no coincidences. Things with mwjor effects can't just happen without someone directing them to happen.

A coincidence might be regarded as an unlikely happenstance, but I think they're generally taken on a case-by-case basis. I don't know of any particular instance offhand where someone said there are no coincidences.

- the ability of a single rogue actor to affect the course of history is negligible. Any purported "lone gunman" needs significant help by many people.

John Wilkes Booth might be said to be a lone gunman, but in fact, there were fellow conspirators who were tried and hanged for their role in the plot. When he killed Lincoln, he didn't really deny it and yelled "sic semper tyrannis" as he left the scene. (Even then, there have been lingering theories that Edwin Stanton may have been behind it.)

In contrast, Lee Harvey Oswald denied having any involvement in the JFK assassination and proclaimed "I am just a patsy" before he was gunned down by Jack Ruby.

These are the elements that run contrary to a lot of history.

They're also the elements behind a lot of the appeal of conspiracy theories: the idea that we're safe from random chance and individual bad actors, and the major threats to us are all orchestrated by grand conspirators who, while they may be evil, have a rationality to their actions that can be figured out and accounted for.

That could be, or it could also be that conspiracy theories are an attempt to propagate a belief that the government and ruling class are so powerful that only a suicidal fool would ever think about challenging them.

 

[an anarchist]

They're also the elements behind a lot of the appeal of conspiracy theories: the idea that we're safe from random chance and individual bad actors, and the major threats to us are all orchestrated by grand conspirators who, while they may be evil, have a rationality to their actions that can be figured out and accounted for.

As I’ve pointed out to you before, being a “conspiracy theorist” is in no way comforting. This idea that conspiracy theorists believe they are free from “random chance” is not true, they just have the added belief that the whole world is diabolically controlled by evil actors. How in the heck is that comforting? People don’t believe in conspiracy theories because it is “comforting”. They believe in them because they have evidence presented to them that others often outright dismiss. Conspiracy theorists also use critical thinking and question everything, which is something that is often dismissed by normies.

 

[wellwisher]

There's a thread regarding the Illuminati currently which brings up some interesting points that got me thinking about people generally relate to certain sub-set of ideas which are often relegated to the realm of "conspiracy theory."

Since many of these theories involve politics, which deals with realm of human governance and the total complex of relations within human society, one can make certain observations about the commonalities of human politics which can be discerned throughout the ages. Some of these observed commonalities might include:

- Most human societies are ruled from the top down, with a few decision makers at the top directing or guiding the lives of the many.
- Power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely).
- Wealthy people tend to want to increase their wealth, or at least retain what they already have.
- Businesses are in business to make money.
- Wealthy and powerful people hold greater influence over a given society than the common people.
- People who do bad or immoral things tend to want to conceal their actions from others.

In my opinion, these observations are self-evident and can be found throughout history as key elements in politics and human governance. Due to certain frailties and failings of human nature, human politics itself has always been a relatively dirty business. However, through most of human history, governments, politicians, and other powerful people have been rather brazen about exerting their power and flexing their muscle to keep the lower classes in line. The Romans would crucify dissidents and rebels openly for all to see, to send an unambiguous message that "we are in charge." The same basic principle operated throughout the Middle Ages, characterized by beheadings, burnings, putting people to rack, etc. Even the lowliest peasants, illiterate and ignorant, knew what the score was and who was in charge.
So, in other words, the ways and means of human governance and the wielding of political power has tended towards brutal, underhanded, and amoral/immoral methods. Some people might say "this is just how the 'real world' works."

Over the past 200-300 years, there have been movements advocating that society move away from those old, primitive methods of governance and work towards more liberal and democratic societies, as manifested in the American and French Revolutions, as well as a whole series of revolutions world-wide during the 19th and 20th centuries. People were demanding changes in "how the world works" and how the few in power governed over the masses in their respective societies.

To be sure, our governments did change. In the U.S., we have a democratic-republican political system, a Constitutional order with an emphasis on human rights, and an open society with a robust free press. Many Americans believe we have evolved beyond political systems which were associated with atrocities, slavery, cruel and unusual punishments, and other forms of human degradation and horror. Many believe that the world as a whole has mostly evolved from those earlier ways and that we are in a different age now. Technologically, industrially, and scientifically, this is certainly true, and life has definitely improved by leaps and bounds from the earlier, more primitive eras. However, after a few centuries of industrialism and expansion, that's taken a significant toll on our environment, eco-system, and climate.

This belief feeds into a common view held by Americans that America is on the side of "good." We are the "leader of the free world," fighting for democracy and freedom against tyranny and dictatorship. While I don't think many Americans literally believe this wholeheartedly, it does seem to be prominent within the overall American mythos and how we generally perceive ourselves. This remains true, even as many people often show open disdain for the politicians and the government in general.

But I have found that this belief seems to be often prominent in discussions regarding government when they're the subject of some kind of conspiracy theory. When people who have been raised to believe that they are living in the land of the free and home of the brave all their lives, the suggestion or possibility that that may not be true might lead to a reflexive denial and strong resistance to the idea.

Things that would be considered "politics as usual" throughout most of history - and even within many governments in the world today - are dismissed as "impossible" or "implausible" simply because...well...we're Americans and we simply don't do things like that. We believe in freedom, democracy, human rights, and good, honorable government. Of course, we allow that there will be some "bad apples," but our system works, and the bad apples are always caught. Good will always triumph over evil. Or so we've been led to believe, and anyone who doesn't believe it must be some kind of wing-nut or conspiracy theorist or maybe even evil.

For me personally, I've always been somewhat agnostic about conspiracy theories. I neither believe nor disbelieve, but I never felt any great need to go out of my way to challenge or confront anyone putting forth some sort of conspiracy theory. I don't generally entertain conspiracy theories that involve aliens, Satan, or anything that might be considered "not of this Earth."

But when it comes to theories involving politicians, bureaucrats, generals, police officers, or businesspeople behaving badly, then those are things I know exist in human politics in general, so I can put it in the "it's possible" category. Although, if there isn't enough evidence to prove it, then it may remain unproven, yet still within the range of possibility.

But I've discerned a strong resistance to the idea that "it's possible," as some people ostensibly believe that it undermines faith in the system and the ideals upon which it is founded. Because this is America, and we just wouldn't do things like that.

I guess what I'm really getting at here, when I look at the ways and means of how America has grown and remained powerful - and how we continue to try to exert that power, I ask myself: Has the world really changed that much? Has human nature changed? Have we really grown and become more enlightened? Is all this talk about "we are the good guys" just a big put on? Just some act? Are we just better at pretending?

I don't want to believe that any of these conspiracy theories are true, and I'd like to believe that we really are "the good guys" in this great human struggle we seem to having. But sometimes, I'm not too sure about that.

In this day and age of fake news and social media, conspiracy theory is both a type of free speech checks and balance as well as the action of con artists in power. The claim that President Biden was having mental issues was considered a conspiracy theory, until that government led scam was exposed as true. Biden was forced out of the 2024 election by the same con artists, who tried to paint an illusionary picture of his mental health. The same con artists also came up with the conspiracy theory that Trump was a threat to Democracy, while they were the ones who voided the Democratic primary vote of President Biden. That was a threat to Democratic voting. Those who were engaged in conspiracies, often to use the term, "conspiracy theory" as a cover for their own lies and conspiracies.

The Russian Collusion conspiracy theory, by the swamp, was also debunked. That conspiracy theory divided the country. Trump is Hitler is a conspiracy theory, that all the Left still believes in. Harris is qualified to be President, is also a conspiracy theory, since it uses too much Hollywood and fake news support to be based on reality. Man made climate change is a conspiracy theory, that led to inflation and a decrease in standard of living. Now the Left has the conspiracy theory that Trump was responsible for the immigration problem.

Much of what was censored by the Government in 2020, was called conspiracy theory. However, the crooked government was using that as an excuse to run an election interference scam that took away free speech liberties, from those who spoke the truth to power. COVID led to Government endorsing a wide range of conspiracy theories that have been debunked.

A government with a history of lying and conspiring to run scams, needs citizen to challenge the status quo. Calling those efforts of concerned citizens, a conspiracy, has turned out, time and again, to be a defense used by criminal conspirators, more than the rantings of unhinged citizens.

If you look at citizen requesting data from various DNC and Swamp Agencies, and their avoidance of truth and transparency, the behavior of the Government shows it is covering up something. They could defuse conspiracy theories by being transparent. But transparency, would expose the conspirators. The hunter Biden laptop being Russian disinformation, was a conspiracy theory, use as a covered up by those in power, to hide their conspiracy of influence peddling; pot calling the kettle black.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I’ve pointed out to you before, being a “conspiracy theorist” is in no way comforting. This idea that conspiracy theorists believe they are free from “random chance” is not true, they just have the added belief that the whole world is diabolically controlled by evil actors. How in the heck is that comforting?

It isn't that they think that there's no random chance at all; it's more that they experience cognitive dissonance when there's a "mismatch" between causes and effects... e.g. something as insignificant as a fluke or simple error leading to something as significant as, say, a world war.

This article explains it better than I seem to be:

But the murder of the Archduke provides us with another valuable window into the fickle nature of history and the minds of conspiracy theorists. This window illuminates the fact that staggeringly important events can result from trivial causes. Even a relative nobody like Gavrilo Princip or Lee Harvey Oswald can change history because of the unpredictable effects of chance and circumstance. But the problem is that the human mind being what is, it looks for causal patterns that are as large as the effects they produce. We find it easy to accept the incalculably evil Nazis as the cause of World War 2 but find it hard to swallow the lowly Princip as the pivotal cause of World War 1. We find it even harder to accept the inconsequential Lee Harvey Oswald as the causal factor for the murder of the consequential John F Kennedy. In the face of disparate differences between cause and effect our mind resorts to what Shermer calls “patternicity” and “agenticity”. Since we believe that the agents responsible for historic effects should be as major as the events themselves, we start conjuring them up to soothe our psychology. So, since Oswald does not fit the right profile as an agent for JFK’s assassination we start invoking the CIA, the Cubans, the Mafia and LBJ as more plausible agents, even if the evidence implicating these entities is thinner than the other evidence. The pattern fits, but only in the comfortable confines of our minds.

Gavrilo Princip, conspiracy theories and the fragility of cause and effect

A hundred years ago this day in Sarajevo, disgruntled nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired a shot. An Archduke and his wife died, the world mourned and fulminated, and in a rash of misunderstanding and patriotic throes the nations of Europe went to war with each other, a war that in its calculated...

www.scientificamerican.com

People don’t believe in conspiracy theories because it is “comforting”. They believe in them because they have evidence presented to them that others often outright dismiss. Conspiracy theorists also use critical thinking and question everything, which is something that is often dismissed by normies.

I agree, but I'd describe this as "anomaly hunting" or pareidolia.

In the real world, two weird things can happen at the same time without them sharing a cause. In the real world, eyewitnesses aren't perfectly reliable and there will be honest discrepancies between eyewitness testimonials.

In the conspiracy theorist mindset, a guy with an open umbrella on a sunny day who's at the scene of a presidential assassination must have something to do with the assassination, for instance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A coincidence might be regarded as an unlikely happenstance, but I think they're generally taken on a case-by-case basis. I don't know of any particular instance offhand where someone said there are no coincidences.

I think a better way to describe it would be that the significance of an effect must be proportional to the significance of the effect. It's not that coincidences can't happen at all, but they don't lead to world-changing consequences.

John Wilkes Booth might be said to be a lone gunman, but in fact, there were fellow conspirators who were tried and hanged for their role in the plot. When he killed Lincoln, he didn't really deny it and yelled "sic semper tyrannis" as he left the scene. (Even then, there have been lingering theories that Edwin Stanton may have been behind it.)

In contrast, Lee Harvey Oswald denied having any involvement in the JFK assassination and proclaimed "I am just a patsy" before he was gunned down by Jack Ruby.

Right: there are conspiracies and there are conspiracies.

Nobody disputes that Gavrilo Princip was part of a literal group of conspirators who tried to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand multiple times on one day until they succeeded, but there are conspiracy theorists who argue that the Archduke's generals or driver (or both) must have been involved for they day to have ended the way it did.

The official explanation for 9/11 is a literal conspiracy by al-Qaeda. The conspiracy theorists propose a different, hidden conspiracy.

That could be, or it could also be that conspiracy theories are an attempt to propagate a belief that the government and ruling class are so powerful that only a suicidal fool would ever think about challenging them.

Ooooh... what if the conspiracy theories itself are the product of a hidden conspiracy?

Reminds me of this:

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

I guess what I'm really getting at here, when I look at the ways and means of how America has grown and remained powerful - and how we continue to try to exert that power, I ask myself: Has the world really changed that much?

I would say the world has changed a great deal, with the farther you look back for comparison, the greater the relative change.

Has human nature changed?

No, of course not. It is genetically programmed into us. You would have to dramatically change our genetics to change human nature (which presumably would no longer make them human).

Have we really grown and become more enlightened?

If you mean specific societies and social institutions the answer is yes, absolutely. One dramatic example in the United States would be the abolishment of slavery. There are many, many, many more examples in which current modern societies have "grown and become more enlightened" over their antecedents.

Is all this talk about "we are the good guys" just a big put on? Just some act? Are we just better at pretending?

To separate the world into "good guys" and "bad guys" brings to mind Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Speaking in such terms lends itself to framing the discussion in a more immature worldview, in my opinion.

I don't want to believe that any of these conspiracy theories are true, and I'd like to believe that we really are "the good guys" in this great human struggle we seem to having. But sometimes, I'm not too sure about that.

A "conspiracy theory" by definition is a hypothetical speculation that is untrue and outlandish, conforming to a certain formula or set of characteristics such as conspirators being members of a powerful secret and sinister group or "cabal".

Are there people who conspire with others to perform illegal and wrongful acts? Of course. But that is not what the term "conspiracy theory" refers to. Therefore, my recommendation is to reject conspiracy theories out of hand, like the Pizzagate Conspiracy for example, and focus on actual evidence-based acts of wrong-doing or conspiracy.

The best way to foil actual conspiracies is to have and support a robust political system with a stong set of checks and balances, including a democratic system, strong and independent judiciary, and strong free speech protections.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure what you mean by "severely affected" in this context. I don't see that such a discussion should be that traumatic.

But one pattern I've noticed is that any conspiracy theory which might make the US government look bad leads to angry and unbalanced reactions, whereas theories about other governments or things not of this earth generate different kinds of reactions.

I've noticed that the standards for evidence can often change, as conspiracy theories about Russia or China might be instantly and uncritically believed, whereas if it's about the US government, then people go into "mobster lawyer" mode where they challenge and pick apart every single piece of evidence and every single utterance, handwaving it all away while saying "You have no evidence," just like Al Capone in The Untouchables

For people who seem to feel that it's their life's duty to argue against conspiracy theories about the US government, this is how they come across:

View attachment 98343

They speak more like someone desperately trying to get someone off the hook, not someone honestly looking for the truth. That seems to be the key difference that I can discern.

I would not know, since I am not a US citizen and have no real emotions for or against US. But I would know when some views (like 9/11 is an inside job) are ridiculous and which are not (like Iraq war was a pretext to further oil interests).

 

[The Hammer]

As I’ve pointed out to you before, being a “conspiracy theorist” is in no way comforting. This idea that conspiracy theorists believe they are free from “random chance” is not true, they just have the added belief that the whole world is diabolically controlled by evil actors. How in the heck is that comforting?

It doesn't sound comfortable. It sounds like paranoia

 

[Stevicus]

I think a better way to describe it would be that the significance of an effect must be proportional to the significance of the effect. It's not that coincidences can't happen at all, but they don't lead to world-changing consequences.

Yes, I can see that, and I can also see where one can't just jump to conclusions over a coincidence, at least in the name of protecting the innocent. I would never want to see someone railroaded for a crime they didn't commit just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt must remain the standard.

Still, detectives might have to investigate, probe deeper, follow up leads - just to see if it really was just a coincidence or if there might be something more to it. In that sense, conspiracy theories seem more at the investigative stage, but without enough to actually make a specific accusation. However, a common thread in many such theories is the allegation that the official government agencies didn't investigate far enough and left too many loose ends and unanswered questions.

There's also a perception that, if someone is innocent, they won't mind being investigated. They might say, "Go ahead, investigate me. I have nothing to hide, and I intend to fully cooperate with this investigation." Those who stonewall, give evasive answers, or look like they're trying to hide something end up being perceived as suspicious by comparison.

Right: there are conspiracies and there are conspiracies.

Nobody disputes that Gavrilo Princip was part of a literal group of conspirators who tried to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand multiple times on one day until they succeeded, but there are conspiracy theorists who argue that the Archduke's generals or driver (or both) must have been involved for they day to have ended the way it did.

The official explanation for 9/11 is a literal conspiracy by al-Qaeda. The conspiracy theorists propose a different, hidden conspiracy.

I don't necessarily doubt the official explanations, except that I would observe that, in all of these instances, those committing these attacks were incredibly stupid and essentially torpedoed whatever purported "cause" they were fighting for. Booth did no favors for the South by killing Lincoln; their "cause" was already lost, and the only question left was what they could salvage out of that horrific morass they created.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand also brought about tremendous suffering for the Serbs. Gavrilo Princip was doing no favors for his people either. Personally, I don't see it as any form of "conspiracy" regarding the events of that day, but perhaps a great deal of poor judgement among the major powers dating back to the previous century. Particularly among the nobles and those who believed that there is such a thing as "royal blood." The Kaiser, the Tsar, the Emperor - they were fools. But they weren't the only ones. They didn't have to take part in any plot to kill the Archduke to start the war that they did. Nor did they have to start a war over a terrorist assassination. They ended their own dynasties.

Likewise, with 9/11, I tend to agree with the official explanation, although I did not agree that it was a justification for going to war with Afghanistan. They said that's where Osama Bin Laden was hiding, and the Taliban were sheltering him. They had to go in and get him. This is the same administration which insisted that they had WMDs in Iraq, and they used that as a pretext for invading that country.

But it seems that human idiocy is often the culprit in a lot of these events, along with the reactions to these events. It's just foolishness and madness piled on top of each other, but it seems the only real "conspiracy" comes from an attempt to make it all seem "normal" or "legitimate" or within some sort of rational or legal framework. It's not always nefarious either, as it could be just a way of reassuring the public, maintaining public confidence, and exhibiting a sense of perceived infallibility. They just can't come out and admit that they're fallible human beings who make mistakes like anyone else. Look what happened to poor old Joe.

On the other hand, you've got a guy like Trump who, even though he's been caught in mistakes, lies, and seems as guilty as a cat in a goldfish bowl, he still goes on strong, protesting his innocence and exuding a certain twisted overconfidence which defies all belief - yet still keeps many people entranced. It seems kind of bizarre on the surface and a lot of people can't understand it.

I think a lot of it comes down to creating perceptions and influencing politics, not so much a "whodunit" murder mystery - and that's what makes most conspiracy theories more distractive than anything else.

Ooooh... what if the conspiracy theories itself are the product of a hidden conspiracy?

Reminds me of this:

Yeah, that's why those 9/11 theories just kind of snowed me to no end. There may be a lot of unanswered questions about that, but I never could understand what could be gained from having to read long dissertations on the melting point of steel and how much heat could be generated by jet fuel. They're trying to solve a "whodunit," like some detective crime drama, but most of it seems lost in the clouds.

Based on the situations at hand, these are all events which were likely bound to happen sooner or later anyway. A lot of Southerners hated Lincoln and would have relished the opportunity to kill him, so if not Booth, someone else might have tried. Likewise, any Austrian noble would not be particularly liked in a region populated by Serbs who believed that Austria had no right to annex their territory. The danger already existed. And it was only a matter of time before an anti-American terrorist group would make a huge play against America such as what happened on 9/11. We had always been aware of the possibility, even if not in that particular method.

So, there's no particular reason for anyone to engage in any kind of conspiracy to cause to happen something will probably happen sooner or later anyway. The "conspiracy," if there is one, might be more in how they explain it to the public and what kind of image they wish to present.

Another quibble I might have with conspiracy theory is that they also seem to focus more on motive and often get mystical about certain organizations (such as the Freemasons). My view is that politics, in its rawest form, is just about power. War, terrorism, assassination, espionage, oppression - these are all bad things that governments and politicians do, and I honestly don't care about their reasons and motives for doing them. They say they do it for freedom and to make the world safe for democracy, and the conspiracy theorists say they're doing it because they're secretly controlled by lizard people. I don't believe either one. But something definitely seems crooked.

 

[Stevicus]

I would not know, since I am not a US citizen and have no real emotions for or against US. But I would know when some views (like 9/11 is an inside job) are ridiculous and which are not (like Iraq war was a pretext to further oil interests).

The notion that "9/11 was an inside job" may be unproven theory and probably isn't true, but I wouldn't necessarily put it in the category of "ridiculous." Not the idea, in and of itself. It could have been that, but it probably wasn't. I'm not really going to lose any sleep over it one way or the other, but I'm not going to say that I'm entirely certain either way.

 

[an anarchist]

It doesn't sound comfortable. It sounds like paranoia

A paranoid man should never look on the internet about conspiracy theories haha that’s adding gas to a fire rip my sanity

 

[Heyo]

A paranoid man should never look on the internet about conspiracy theories haha that’s adding gas to a fire rip my sanity

Yep. And also remember that being paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you.