Negating the "conspiracy theorist" label

[Myra Bronstein]

Almost without fail when I start talking about connected dots, particularly the 1963 coup, my conversational partner says "oh you're one of those conspiracy theorists." They then recoil like a horse confronted with a rattlesnake.

I'm amazed at the effectiveness of the campaign (conspiracy) to discredit those of us who connect dots. People are more afraid of "conspiracy theorists" than they are conspiracies.

If their minds are at all salvageable after the decades of brainwashing I want to try to get through to them. So lately I've replied "oh you're one of those coincidence theorists." The hope is to turn the tables and put them on the defensive and get them to see how absurd it is to consider everything a coincidence.

What do you think of this strategy? Willing to try it out? What is an example of a conspiracy that even the most programmed sheeple would have to acknowledge as genuine?

[Magda Hassan]

Oh, boy, am I with you on this one. :ridinghorse:

I've been using the co-incidence theorist line too and it does get them on the defensive and thinking differently.

Most of the people I know accept conspiracies as fact of life as most of the people I know are very politically active in one way or another at one time or another. The rest of the people I know are criminals of various kinds some of them perfectly respectible people. But for people who are not in this area and have illusions about the world and society and how it works it is a big hurdle to get over. They don't often see the dots let alone join them. For them the elephant in the room is just a thing to put the sofa against and hang the plasma tv on. Our whole society is based on illusions, lies and conspiracies. Let's start with Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Obama tells us 'we are in this together' like we are all the same and have the same interests and have been equally responsible for the state of things as if we are co-conspiritors with the criminals. Partners conspire to keep their affairs and internet browsing history and credit card statements secret from their significant other. Executives conspire to load their expense accounts with things they have't actually forked out for. Ditto tax lodgement forms. Bosses conspire to steal the surplus value created by their workers every day and keep it for them selves and yet tell their workers they have been paid in full for their work. Our whole capitalist system is based on that one. Advertisers and Disney tell us that if we buy this product, dress, behave this way one day our prince will come and everyone will love us. Food manufacturers tell you that it is a vanilla/chocolate/strawberry icecream and yet it has no vanilla/ chocolate or strawberry in it and is probably not even an icecream either. They conspire to hide this information by using numbers on the back of the package. There are thousands of daily examples of conspiracy big and small, some vastly significant others irrelevant. As a society it needs conspiracies and illusions because if there was an outbreak of truth it could not survive in its current form.

[Charles Drago]

So lately I've replied "oh you're one of those coincidence theorists."

This is tantamount to surrender insofar as it implicitly levels the playing field for our truth and their lies.

Speaking only of the JFK assassination: Conspiracy is not a "theory." It is a fact.

To reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

If we are dealing with an individual who does not have reasonable access to the evidence, then we are obliged to begin our recitation of how things happened in Dallas with something along the lines of, "What you are about to learn is no longer subject to debate. It is historical truth. It is not my 'opinion' or my 'belief' that JFK died at the hands of conspirators. It is my certain knowledge."

There is not a scintilla of legitimate evidence to support the LN theory/lie.

Absent the post-shooting actions of Mrs. Kennedy, there were no tender mercies in evidence in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. It is high time that we return the fire.

Remember to focus on the "how" question of the Kennedy murder -- answered simply and truthfully with, "by criminal conspirators."

As for the "who" and "why" queries: Honorable debate continues -- but the field of reasonable answers shrinks almost daily.

We are at war with the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy -- and with their accessories after the fact.

An equally easy-to-demonstrate conspiracy -- even for the controlled?

The Founding Fathers' plot.

The Lincoln hit.

The Reichstag fire.

Valkyrie.

The assassination of Yamamoto.

The looting of Banco Ambrosiano.

The Black Sox Scandal.

Watergate.

The assassination of Julius Caesar.

For starters.

[Magda Hassan]

This is tantamount to surrender insofar as it implicitly levels the playing field for our truth and their lies.

Speaking only of the JFK assassination: Conspiracy is not a "theory." It is a fact.

To reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

If we are dealing with an individual who does not have reasonable access to the evidence, then we are obliged to begin our recitation of how things happened in Dallas with something along the lines of, "What you are about to learn is no longer subject to debate. It is historical truth. It is not my 'opinion' or my 'belief' that JFK died at the hands of conspirators. It is my certain knowledge."

What you say Charles is true. I am sure Myra is referring in a general sense and looking for tactical options.

[Charles Drago]

Magda,

I am suggesting just such a "tactical option:" the wielding of truth as a sermon to enlighten the ignorant and a weapon to bludgeon the guilty.

No more "debate" on questions long answered.

No more collegiality to the enemy.

We hold the moral and historical high ground.

On historical conspiracies, see David Mantik.

[Myra Bronstein]

What you say Charles is true. I am sure Myra is referring in a general sense and looking for tactical options.

Looking for tactical options. That's what I'm doing. Looking for examples of conspiracies so blatant and undeniable that even the dullest of dullards will see them.

Thanks Maggie.

[Magda Hassan]

Magda,

I am suggesting just such a "tactical option:" the wielding of truth as a sermon to enlighten the ignorant and a weapon to bludgeon the guilty.

No more "debate" on questions long answered.

No more collegiality to the enemy.

We hold the moral and historical high ground.

On historical conspiracies, see David Mantik.

I totally agree Charles, no more 'debate' for something long answered and we have better things to do with our energies and time.
I will check out Mantik. Sounds like it may be useful.

[Mark Stapleton]

So lately I've replied "oh you're one of those coincidence theorists." The hope is to turn the tables and put them on the defensive and get them to see how absurd it is to consider everything a coincidence.

While I'm basically in agreement with Charles, I think this sounds like a good comeback, Myra.

I'll try it at the first opportunity, which won't be long.

[Peter Presland]

Well I hesitate to cross swords with a founder member so early but I think Charles is being a little hard with the 'tantamount to surrender' bit. I take all his other points and agree 100% but - and it's a BIG BUT - as a tactical ploy to put ones potential dismisser on the defensive, I think it has great merit. IMH experience, most people who use the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a pejorative do so as a way of avoiding having to deal with potentially difficult and unpleasant issues; as a defense mechanism in other words - that's where they do not have an agenda of course. In either event I reckon it is still a good tactical device to take the wind out of their sales before moving to substantive debate.

[David Guyatt]

The thing I find that is invariably overlooked by those who like to label every unpalatable controversy as a "conspiracy theory" is man's inherent nature to engage in conspiracies on a daily basis. And then pretend they hadn't.

In almost every human endeavour, from the boardroom to the pulpit, people conspire to achieve their aims. These rage from little conspiracies to big conspiracies. But this side of their daily lives is often - if not usually - suppressed which causes it to later leaps out elsewhere as a projection on others.

It is a case of the black spotty dog thinking it is a white Persian cat and then pointing fingers, holdings its belly and laughing, at all black spotty dogs that pass it by.

In such cases mirrors are feared.