Defining conspiracy theorist

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery

Defining conspiracy theorist

Unread postby aa5 on Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:38 am

A key part of discrediting opposition is to define them in extremist/straw man terms. So someone pushing for a higher minimum wage, you define as someone who wants a communist revolution, and to take away peoples houses, nationalize farms, etc. And on the opposite side someone opposing increasing the minimum wage, can be defined as someone who wants to see widespread poverty, who wants to end social security, etc.

So anyone who doesn't 100% believe the government narrative is grouped together with ridiculous conspiracy theories like ancient aliens, reptilian shape shifters, hollow Moon etc. Discredit by association.

But you see two can play at defining terms. I was talking to a left-leaning person and they believe that some businessmen work behind the scenes with other businessmen in the same industry to fix prices. 'price fixing'. And that those businessmen are connected in with the government agency that is supposed to be monitoring the marketplace for price fixing.

I said to her... you are a conspiracy theorist. People working together behind the scenes, without the public knowledge is a conspiracy. It turns out she also believes that the military-industrial complex pushes wars. Yet another conspiracy she believes is that oil companies fund universities to do studies where the results match the interests of the oil companies and not necessarily the scientific truth.

She works in a government agency, and in that agency, members of a certain Christian religious sect have taken over most of the high level management positions. So I said next, that she has definitely crossed the Rubicon into kook conspiracy theorist land.

She cannot so easily dismiss all conspiracy theories now, unless of course she is willing to give up her own conspiracy theories.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Defining conspiracy theorist

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:58 pm

Yes aa5, and let's remind those who still hold on to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (the official "20 arabs supposedly conspired, to have supposedly used box-cutters, to supposedly have flown 4 planes, to have supposedly caused steel buildings to blow up magically top-to-bottom, and to have turned steel to dust as shown in the supposedly non-CGI official moving-images, and to supposedly have killed 3,000 supposedly real victims on 9/11/2001" conspiracy theory) that they are indeed holding on to an official yet ABSURDLY impossible Conspiracy Theory themselves, a story which happens to be proven absolutely false by inconsistent and impossible official depictions within the official media-broadcast moving-images (like the "mistakenly-sized 4-meter victims" found within the official "footage" which in fact proves that all of the media-broadcast moving-images of 9/11 were all CGI, prepared in advance, to start a war), and thus the official "20 arabs conspired to kill 3000, I saw the official moving-images broadcast on TV so it must be true" official-conspiracy belief-holders are actually wrongly holding on to to an absurdly impossible conspiracy theory.

I agree with your post aa5. It is unfortunate that Tavistock or the CIA or whoever maliciously introduced the phrase "conspiracy theory / conspiracy theorist" successfully convinced the majority of current folks to label any factual discussions about elite criminal actions as "conspiracy theories" with the clever definition implication being that "only poor unofficial people conspire to commit crimes, rich official people would never conspire to commit crimes, so all discussions about rich official people conspiring to commit crimes must be derided as being non-factual and crazy by using the label 'conspiracy theory / conspiracy theorist'."

And yet, although we are totally in agreement aa5, I think this particular thread-start, together with my positively agreeing reply, probably (instead of meriting a separate thread) will both justly be moved to the Chatroom? :)

Or perhaps instead of sending this thread to the Chatroom, this thread might merit being its own separate thread, if the subject is expanded a little, to list and expand upon various additional phrases and techniques that the wealthiest criminals use to prevent the majority from discussing their very fake CGI hoaxes which hide their very real crimes against humanity.

For example, their general technique of presenting the lies which they push as "common sense" "facts" and "laws", while labeling all folks who disprove their claims as "theorists with theories, theories which don't pass the official sniff-test."

And for example, more specifically, using the following reporting technique in their official newspaper/magazine "honest reporter reporting" propaganda: the official stories which the military/government/banking/corporations want to push are reported as "X happened, at Y time, at Z place" while the embarrassing counterpoints which they want to hide and deride are reported as "somebody claims blah-blah-blah." The truth is: every single reporting sentence should have a "this is just a claim by somebody" qualifier attached to each reported action-which-supposedly-occurred. Actually each sentence in a news report should have a list of claimants, making each claimant personally responsible for their part in the gossip chain, "This newspaper's editor Mr. ABC claims that this newspaper's reporter Mr. DEF claims that a supposed-event-witness Mr. GHI claims (in a sworn written statement subject to perjury penalties) that Mr. GHI claims he supposedly saw a plane crash into the Empire State Building yesterday at 5:35pm." But no, they don't do that, they present a bunch of claims as facts, "Yesterday at 5:35pm a plane crashed into the Empire State Building. One man witnessed the carnage while leaving his office to buy his wife flowers. Another woman saw three people jump from the burning building to their deaths before the building blew up top-to-bottom. Terrorists are suspected to have flown the plane into the building and the appropriate invasion of some country will commence tomorrow. These are all neutral indisputable facts about the Empire Plane Event which definitely occurred yesterday, and none of these sentences are merely claims by lying people or simulated characters. You readers may argue about WHO flew the plane or WHO financed this plane hi-jacking or HOW the plane caused a steel building to turn to dust, but you readers can definitely not even consider the possibility that all the plane-claims and all the plane-images were prepared-in-advance faked. A plane definitely crashed into the Empire State Building yesterday at 5:35pm, since the first sentence of this report matter-of-fact states so without qualification."

TLDR:

"20 arab/poor/evil/crazy people conspired to blow up the WTC,
so their countries would be bombed, for ZERO personal benefit"
is currently being wrongly labelled as "neutrally reporting facts".

"20 wealthy/official/clever people conspired to blow up the WTC,
so their wars would be approved, for TRILLIONS in personal benefit"
is currently being wrongly labelled as "espousing conspiracy theory".
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs


Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests