Conspiracy theories and spiral dynamics

[Forestluv]

33 minutes ago, Consept said:

So the result like anything, was nuanced, overall vaccines are a positive but there are some issues with metals in some vaccines specifically for those with pre existing conditions. Looking at about 99% safe i might be wrong about that exact number but it would very high nonetheless. 

So using this model of aiming for truth we've come to a conclusion in our new government that we have to keep going with vaccines, however we need to work tirelessly to make sure theyre 100% safe, get rid of any that are potentially dangerous and make sure that anyone who has pre-existing conditions that could be affected by a particular vaccine does not take it.

Idealistically, aiming for 100% safe is a great target. Yet in actuality, it’s not practical. Going from 0% safe to 99% safe is much easier than going from 99% safe to 100% safe. That last 1% is incredibly difficult to obtain and would take huge amounts of resources: researchers, time and money. Much more resources would be needed to go from 99% to 100% than from 0% to 99%.

There is also the cost-benefit at the population level. With a threshold of 99% safe, we could protect millions of people from severe illness and death, with hundreds of people having adverse vaccine side effects. With a threshold of 100% safe nobody would have adverse vaccine side effects, yet millions of people would not be protected from severe illness and death. 

Part of the problem is that most people are highly self-centered and place individual welfare waaaay above social welfare. They see themselves as an individual separate from a others “out there”. This can be so extreme, that a person would place a tiny benefit to their self over an enormous benefit to society. For example, if there was a pill someone could take that has a 1% chance of negative side effects, yet would help protect society from severe health consequences - self-centered people would not take the pill. There mentality would be “A 1% chance I would have adverse side effects? That’s too high. I don’t want to risk it. Everyone else can take the pill”. This would be a common mentality for those with libertarian leanings. 

[LaucherJunge]

@Consept
I see this claim made very often, claiming conspiracy theorists to have a binary view. While it surely is the case for many conspiracy theorists AND I might add people who are not conspiracy theorists as well, but this is just your perception when you come looking at it from the outside basically.
There are many different conspiracy theories and seldom there is someone who believes in all of them, some maybe even most are simply not true, yet I would stay open minded. Some have been shown to be true and yet you pretend as if nothing happend. What does it imply if some were shown to be true? That you might be mislead in your thinking as people were before relative to these other conspiracy theories which didn't have solid "evidence" either but somehow people were smart enough to uncover the truth for themselves without this so called hard "evidence" you people cling so hard to.

Some things are just based on intuition and a holistic view of aspects surrounding a certain subject.

As I already said about this topic, I don't trust the current established forces to make these tests and studies in a way that would make me feel safe about it, it's not even so much about the test result itself, it's about the shady figures who obviously are trying to push their agenda onto us, this is what makes me most skeptical, the research itself is not the source of my concern.
It would be great if that could be done without all of these agendas.
I will give you the example they just gave Bill multiple minutes of talking time on German TV where he was promoting his vaccine agenda and his monopoly on that matter, telling us what to do, 7 billion people have to get the vaccine! He's absolutely insane and not a single soul on the whole landscape of mainstream media would question his agenda even for a second, no questions asked.
With the election of Trump I already noticed that what usually is true is exactly the opposite of what the media are most vigilant about. But yeah, you'll figure out these things soon enough. I'm not going to try to convince any of you because I see that only hard evidence could ever convince you, I promise you that evidence will be coming in the future.


 

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[The observer]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In trying to imagine the appeal. . .from my observations:

1) people that tend to get immersed into conspiracy theories generally have a strong distrust of “mainstream media” and government. I think it’s healthy to have some skepticism, yet conspiracy theorists are on the extreme end of the spectrum. 

2) those immersed in conspiracy theories are unaware they are immersed in a conspiracy theory. They do not view it as a conspiracy theory, relative to them it is their true reality. They vehemently oppose the accusation they are involved in a conspiracy theory. Ironically, they often judge others as being a conspiracy theorist. For example “that guy who believes the moon landing was staged is a conspiracy theorist, but not me. Now lets talk about how China created the Coronavirus as biological warfare against the rest of the world. . . “. 

3) those immersed in conspiracy theories often view themselves as “open minded”. Over and over, I see people engaged in conspiracy theories say “you aren’t open minded enough to consider another view”.

4) those involved in conspiracy theories pride themselves in being a skeptic - in particular they identify as a skeptic of “mainstream media”, science and government - all of which they deeply mistrust. However, they are not able to distinguish between skepticism and being gullible. They have a tendency to accept whatever is counter to a “mainstream view”.

5) they generally think in binary opposites: it is their theory vs anything not their theory. It’s all or nothing. They cannot see nuggets of truth mixed with nuggets of falsehoods. There are nearly always nuggets of truth in any conspiracy theory - the use these nuggets of truth for a foundation of building a construct of falsehoods and to defend their theory.

6) They commonly make assumptions to ground themselves. Quite often they will say something like “I’m not saying this part happened for sure, yet what if. . . . “. Then that “what if” is assumed to be true and they continue on with the assumption that the “what if” is actually true.

7) They are unaware of what speculation is. 

8) They pride themselves in seeking “evidence”, yet they have very low standards of what counts as “evidence”. 

9) They cannot see how multiple points of circumstantial evidence can be related together as much stronger evidence. This is one way they defend there views. Any single counter point can be defended against, yet they are unable to see consider how those dozens of counter-points together make their theory untenable. 

10) They are immersed within content and cannot see a meta view of structure.

11) regardless of how much evidence u present to them they wont acknowledge it as valid and will keep coming up with more arguments so its pointless to keep arguing with them on the same level and its best to work on the underlying issues often of paranoia eg u might take a flat earther to the outer space and show him the earth is round and then he will come up with all sorts of stories to deny what his eyes display like hallucination or hypnosis may be vr or live wallpapers too

[Loving Radiance]

35 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For example, when Lance Armstrong was winning the Tour de France eight years straight, there were a lot of accusations he was doping with PEDs. There were a lot of accusations, yet Armstrong fans defended against each accusation individually. One can reasonably do that with one accusation, yet once you get into dozens of accusations (at their own detriment), you’ve got to twist yourself into a pretzel and create a conspiracy theory. . . . Several of Armstrong’s support crew (such as his masseuse and bike mechanic) stated they saw him with testosterone. Yet Armstrong fans discredited them as lying and have a resentment against Lance. They ended up losing their careers and even had to leave the country for death threats. . . The media revealed that positive doping tests were hidden, yet Lance’s fans discredited this as “mainstream media” that hates Lance. A few of his competitors came out with evidence that Lance was doping, yet his fans credited this as jealous of Lance’s success. Even Lance’s former teammates spoke about how Lance doped. His fans discredited this as resentful teammates that wanted to write a book and make money. The US FBI started investigating and his fans said this was a government conspiracy to take down Lance. His teammates testified under penalty of perjury that Lance and the entire team was doping. Yet his fans dismissed this as a corrupt FBI forcing their testimony. . . Overall, it was one giant conspiracy. If you look at any single point a case could be made. For example, if it was just Lance’s mechanic who said Lance was doping, it’s reasonable to speculate the mechanic was resentful toward Lance. Yet the conspiracy theorists had to do this with hundreds of different people. The could make a reasonable argument against any one individual. Yet they couldn’t see how collectively it was unreasonable. Dozens of people were making huge personal sacrifices to testify against Lance and got no benefit. There reputations were tarnished, they lost their careers, they were harassed and got death threats, they faced jail time if they didn’t testify and tell the truth. This included Lance’s support crew, his competitors, his teammates, investigated reporters, his friends, anti-doping officials and FBI agents. All of them were lying at personal sacrifice. It is a twisted story. Yet there was a much simpler theory that conspiracy theorists couldn’t accept. This simple theory had only one person and one data point: Lance was lying. 

2 minutes ago, The observer said:

11) regardless of how much evidence u present to them they wont acknowledge it as valid and will keep coming up with more arguments so its pointless to keep arguing with them on the same level and its best to work on the underlying issues often of paranoia eg u might take a flat earther to the outer space and show him the earth is round and then he will come up with all sorts of stories to deny what his eyes display like hallucination or hypnosis may be vr or live wallpapers too

It is so fascinating to see what one is capable to do to defend oneself. I mean, there is so much beauty in twisting and turning, so much self-deception... and I am capable to create this on autopilot. Thank you for this wonderful example.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Loving Radiance
adding quote

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Consept
I see this claim made very often, claiming conspiracy theorists to have a binary view. While it surely is the case for many conspiracy theorists AND I might add people who are not conspiracy theorists as well, but this is just your perception when you come looking at it from the outside basically.
There are many different conspiracy theories and seldom there is someone who believes in all of them, some maybe even most are simply not true, yet I would stay open minded. Some have been shown to be true and yet you pretend as if nothing happend. What does it imply if some were shown to be true? That you might be mislead in your thinking as people were before relative to these other conspiracy theories which didn't have solid "evidence" either but somehow people were smart enough to uncover the truth for themselves without this so called hard "evidence" you people cling so hard to.

Some things are just based on intuition and a holistic view of aspects surrounding a certain subject.

As I already said about this topic, I don't trust the current established forces to make these tests and studies in a way that would make me feel safe about it, it's not even so much about the test result itself, it's about the shady figures who obviously are trying to push their agenda onto us, this is what makes me most skeptical, the research itself is not the source of my concern.
It would be great if that could be done without all of these agendas.
I will give you the example they just gave Bill multiple minutes of talking time on German TV where he was promoting his vaccine agenda and his monopoly on that matter, telling us what to do, 7 billion people have to get the vaccine! He's absolutely insane and not a single soul on the whole landscape of mainstream media would question his agenda even for a second, no questions asked.
With the election of Trump I already noticed that what usually is true is exactly the opposite of what the media are most vigilant about. But yeah, you'll figure out these things soon enough. I'm not going to try to convince any of you because I see that only hard evidence could ever convince you, I promise you that evidence will be coming in the future.


 

Fully get you what i was trying to do is come to a way we can establish truth that we can both agree in. Of course evidence is the default because it seems quite obvious if were dealing with material things ie we can see this person killed that person because theres video footage and dna at the crime scene. 

So if we are throwing out hard evidence which i dont mind doing at all, that has to be the case for any conspiracy you might have, lets stick with vaccines. We'll throw out the scientific evidence but that absolutely has to go both ways meaning, any evidence you have that can be considered scientific that says vaccines are dangerous also has to be thrown out as essentially its from the same source if its peer reviewed etc. 

So then what are we left with to determine truth? Youve mentioned intuition, ok so the question would be do you think thats a good way to establish truth, like if i had an intuition that vaccines are relatively safe and you have an intuition that theyre unsafe how do we determine who is right? 

[LaucherJunge]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Conspiracy theories are a form of imagination, yet I it’s difficult for me to imagine the appeal of conspiracy theories. Some minds get really immersed into conspiracy theory fantasy. For example, some people spend so much time and effort immersed into how the moon landing was staged. They create very elaborate and detailed stories. Yet to me, it has no appeal at all. Even movies that involve conspiracy theories are unappealing to me. The closest I could come would be “The Usual Suspects”, yet that wasn’t quite a conspiracy.

In trying to imagine the appeal. . .from my observations:

1) people that tend to get immersed into conspiracy theories generally have a strong distrust of “mainstream media” and government. I think it’s healthy to have some skepticism, yet conspiracy theorists are on the extreme end of the spectrum. 

2) those immersed in conspiracy theories are unaware they are immersed in a conspiracy theory. They do not view it as a conspiracy theory, relative to them it is their true reality. They vehemently oppose the accusation they are involved in a conspiracy theory. Ironically, they often judge others as being a conspiracy theorist. For example “that guy who believes the moon landing was staged is a conspiracy theorist, but not me. Now lets talk about how China created the Coronavirus as biological warfare against the rest of the world. . . “. 

3) those immersed in conspiracy theories often view themselves as “open minded”. Over and over, I see people engaged in conspiracy theories say “you aren’t open minded enough to consider another view”.

4) those involved in conspiracy theories pride themselves in being a skeptic - in particular they identify as a skeptic of “mainstream media”, science and government - all of which they deeply mistrust. However, they are not able to distinguish between skepticism and being gullible. They have a tendency to accept whatever is counter to a “mainstream view”.

5) they generally think in binary opposites: it is their theory vs anything not their theory. It’s all or nothing. They cannot see nuggets of truth mixed with nuggets of falsehoods. There are nearly always nuggets of truth in any conspiracy theory - the use these nuggets of truth for a foundation of building a construct of falsehoods and to defend their theory.

6) They commonly make assumptions to ground themselves. Quite often they will say something like “I’m not saying this part happened for sure, yet what if. . . . “. Then that “what if” is assumed to be true and they continue on with the assumption that the “what if” is actually true.

7) They are unaware of what speculation is. 

8) They pride themselves in seeking “evidence”, yet they have very low standards of what counts as “evidence”. 

9) They cannot see how multiple points of circumstantial evidence can be related together as much stronger evidence. This is one way they defend there views. Any single counter point can be defended against, yet they are unable to see consider how those dozens of counter-points together make their theory untenable. 

10) They are immersed within content and cannot see a meta view of structure. 

Overall, it’s difficult to place this on a SD hierarchy. I would say a common theme would be a lack of rational thinking skills, which would be a deficiency in stage Orange. To maintain the structure of their theory, they often have to twist themselves into a pretzel with elaborate irrational ideas - yet they can do this because they deeply distrust and “mainstream view”. 

For example, when Lance Armstrong was winning the Tour de France eight years straight, there were a lot of accusations he was doping with PEDs. There were a lot of accusations, yet Armstrong fans defended against each accusation individually. One can reasonably do that with one accusation, yet once you get into dozens of accusations (at their own detriment), you’ve got to twist yourself into a pretzel and create a conspiracy theory. . . . Several of Armstrong’s support crew (such as his masseuse and bike mechanic) stated they saw him with testosterone. Yet Armstrong fans discredited them as lying and have a resentment against Lance. They ended up losing their careers and even had to leave the country for death threats. . . The media revealed that positive doping tests were hidden, yet Lance’s fans discredited this as “mainstream media” that hates Lance. A few of his competitors came out with evidence that Lance was doping, yet his fans credited this as jealous of Lance’s success. Even Lance’s former teammates spoke about how Lance doped. His fans discredited this as resentful teammates that wanted to write a book and make money. The US FBI started investigating and his fans said this was a government conspiracy to take down Lance. His teammates testified under penalty of perjury that Lance and the entire team was doping. Yet his fans dismissed this as a corrupt FBI forcing their testimony. . . Overall, it was one giant conspiracy. If you look at any single point a case could be made. For example, if it was just Lance’s mechanic who said Lance was doping, it’s reasonable to speculate the mechanic was resentful toward Lance. Yet the conspiracy theorists had to do this with hundreds of different people. The could make a reasonable argument against any one individual. Yet they couldn’t see how collectively it was unreasonable. Dozens of people were making huge personal sacrifices to testify against Lance and got no benefit. There reputations were tarnished, they lost their careers, they were harassed and got death threats, they faced jail time if they didn’t testify and tell the truth. This included Lance’s support crew, his competitors, his teammates, investigated reporters, his friends, anti-doping officials and FBI agents. All of them were lying at personal sacrifice. It is a twisted story. Yet there was a much simpler theory that conspiracy theorists couldn’t accept. This simple theory had only one person and one data point: Lance was lying. 

1)
This is simply a belief that you are imposing as well. Why is having extreme distrust towards the media any bad if it's actual brainwashing?
Now if it's not, you might have a point that the extreme might cause problems but I would rather have these problems than this brainwashing machinery.
And of course this now is just my belief that I would be imposing, which I am not, simply making a point here.

2)
Can't really comment on this one since I've never really seen a conspiracy theorists call another guy a conspiracy theorists, that they don't all agree with each other is inevitable considering the scape of all this and actually also a very healthy thing.
I on my end am actually kind of happy to have the privilege of being a conspiracy theorist, breaking out of the brainwash is a good thing as you people should know self actualization is not very mainstream either.
Now does the current mainstream have good aspects to it? For sure, but I couldn't care less about something having positive aspects if they are just the bare minimum that should be there in the first place, now if it didn't people would have woken up way sooner, now the awakening is just slowly beginning.
At this point also consider the Whistleblowers and documents about the CIA inventing the term conspiracy theorist to discredit people, that's why they tend to defend themselves against this terminology being used as a weapon against them, but I couldn't care less myself, this weapon is getting weaker day after day.

3)
Because most of people who have gone as far as to consider conspiracy theories have to be open minded in the first place, with closed mindedness you are not gonna get there. Now this doesn't exclude people from being open minded and not be into conspiracy theories.
So you definitely have a point with this, if it happens as often as you say it does. At the same time the opposite side holds truth as well because as I already stated open mindedness is a requirement, people are just quick to judge others, but that goes for both sides.

4)
Yes, but again you don't mention here that people might be gullible by believing the mainstream media. Again this can go for both sides, so I don't see it as a good argument to begin with. And not sides as in binary views, but sides as in the vast scape of conspiracy theorists and the vast scape of not conspiracy theorists. You an be skeptic about many things.

5)
If the whole system is corrupt, yeah it's all or nothing. Which doesn't mean the system doesn't still hold things that might be useful for the future and are inherently good things, yet so many people cling to these good things, like a junkie to his needle that they miss to see the world beyond the needle.
Sometimes the chunks are hidden from you so you'll have to work with the nuggets unfortunately, luckily sometimes you can extrapolate from chunks missing where they should be, that something has been covered up.

6&7 kinda contradict themselves in my view, so I'll dive into 7.

7)
That one is new for me, since I call my deep dives and explanations of the theories I know as speculation or worst case scenarios for the most part, but I'm sure there will be plenty people "guilty" of this. And I agree that it's not very helpful that people are claiming absolute truth everywhere, but as we should know from some of Leos greatest teachings, never ever believe something to 100%.

8)
Or maybe high standards for evidence are according to rules which are preventing certain things to be revealed. Speculation I guess.
As I described in the other comment above. there were conspiracy theories which didn't have this hard evidence you hold up so highly and yet they've been shown to be true. Weird, how can these dumb people who have such low standard for evidence know before anyone else does?

9)
This argument is actually exactly what conspiracy theorists consider as evidence, so this point absolutely doesn't make sense to me.
This is exactly what we do, as you said we collect these nuggets, we collect hundreds and thousands of these nuggets and then they offer a holistic picture.

10)
Meta view is exactly what conspiracy theories are about, but of course you'll not see that if you don't dive deep. Isn't it obvious that you only can see the meta structure when you dove deep enough to actually consider all the nuggets? You people refuse to dive into it, absolutely refuse and censor any efforts to do so.

@Consept
By building exactly the system you believe we already live in, just maybe in a even better way. With some huge and some minor improvements made and they sometime in the future an even more advanced system can be build along with the growth of humanity and so on into infinity.
I absolutely don't have anything against scientific research studies and relying on hard evidence, that would be great if this would be the case, but within a system where only parts of the truth are released and many parts are completely twisted around to fit certain agendas, I sadly have to make the cut here basically and just go against this system with all that I got. How do you think revolutions occured? Do you think revolutions go according to strict rules and are beautifully smooth?
 

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Consept]

17 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Consept
By building exactly the system you believe we already live in, just maybe in an even better way.
I absolutely don't have anything against scientific research studies and relying on hard evidence, that would be great if this would be the case, but within a system where only parts of the truth are released and many parts are completely twisted around to fit certain agendas, I sadly have to make the cut here basically and just go against this system with all that I got. How do you think revolutions occured? Do you think revolutions go according to strict rules and are beautifully smooth?
 

OK so youre saying its impossible to come to truth at least in this government because the evidence will always be skewed to fit an agenda. So that means any evidence that has an agenda should be thrown out as well, ive come across many youtube documentaries that definitely have an agenda such as 'out of the shadows' for example, this is not to say theres not some truth in these docs but to deny they have an agenda would be dishonest. To come to this theory that they have an agenda I use my intuition in noticing the rhetoric is similar to right wing rhetoric, its heavy on christian fundamentalism and it appears to be backed by right wing people. (keep in mind im not saying theres anything wrong with any of the standpoints or that they should be dismissed simply because they take these standpoints)

I know for a fact some people have come to conclusions about the government with documentaries like these, im not sure you brought up this particular one but there is another thread on it. So by your logic because this has an agenda behind it shouldnt this and most other documentaries  should not be looked at as valid evidence? Also there is at least a chance some of these documentaries couldve been produced by people in government, thats not an ascertion, i really dont know but its definitely in the realms of possibility

You might also say, of course docs are not valid evidence, but again the question remains, what is a good way to get to truth?

Edited April 16, 2020 by Consept

[The observer]

21 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

1)
This is simply a belief that you are imposing as well. Why is having extreme distrust towards the media any bad if it's actual brainwashing?
Now if it's not, you might have a point that the extreme might cause problems but I would rather have these problems than this brainwashing machinery.
And of course this now is just my belief that I would be imposing, which I am not, simply making a point here.

2)
Can't really comment on this one since I've never really seen a conspiracy theorists call another guy a conspiracy theorists, that they don't all agree with each other is inevitable considering the scape of all this and actually also a very healthy thing.
I on my end am actually kind of happy to have the privilege of being a conspiracy theorist, breaking out of the brainwash is a good thing as you people should know self actualization is not very mainstream either.
Now does the current mainstream have good aspects to it? For sure, but I couldn't care less about something having positive aspects if they are just the bare minimum that should be there in the first place, now if it didn't people would have woken up way sooner, now the awakening is just slowly beginning.
At this point also consider the Whistleblowers and documents about the CIA inventing the term conspiracy theorist to discredit people, that's why they tend to defend themselves against this terminology being used as a weapon against them, but I couldn't care less myself, this weapon is getting weaker day after day.

3)
Because most of people who have gone as far as to consider conspiracy theories have to be open minded in the first place, with closed mindedness you are not gonna get there. Now this doesn't exclude people from being open minded and not be into conspiracy theories.
So you definitely have a point with this, if it happens as often as you say it does. At the same time the opposite side holds truth as well because as I already stated open mindedness is a requirement, people are just quick to judge others, but that goes for both sides.

4)
Yes, but again you don't mention here that people might be gullible by believing the mainstream media. Again this can go for both sides, so I don't see it as a good argument to begin with. And not sides as in binary views, but sides as in the vast scape of conspiracy theorists and the vast scape of not conspiracy theorists. You an be skeptic about many things.

5)
If the whole system is corrupt, yeah it's all or nothing. Which doesn't mean the system doesn't still hold things that might be useful for the future and are inherently good things, yet so many people cling to these good things, like a junkie to his needle that they miss to see the world beyond the needle.
Sometimes the chunks are hidden from you so you'll have to work with the nuggets unfortunately, luckily sometimes you can extrapolate from chunks missing where they should be, that something has been covered up.

6&7 kinda contradict themselves in my view, so I'll dive into 7.

7)
That one is new for me, since I call my deep dives and explanations of the theories I know as speculation or worst case scenarios for the most part, but I'm sure there will be plenty people "guilty" of this. And I agree that it's not very helpful that people are claiming absolute truth everywhere, but as we should know from some of Leos greatest teachings, never ever believe something to 100%.

8)
Or maybe high standards for evidence are according to rules which are preventing certain things to be revealed. Speculation I guess.
As I described in the other comment above. there were conspiracy theories which didn't have this hard evidence you hold up so highly and yet they've been shown to be true. Weird, how can these dumb people who have such low standard for evidence know before anyone else does?

9)
This argument is actually exactly what conspiracy theorists consider as evidence, so this point absolutely doesn't make sense to me.
This is exactly what we do, as you said we collect these nuggets, we collect hundreds and thousands of these nuggets and then they offer a holistic picture.

10)
Meta view is exactly what conspiracy theories are about, but of course you'll not see that if you don't dive deep. Isn't it obvious that you only can see the meta structure when you dove deep enough to actually consider all the nuggets? You people refuse to dive into it, absolutely refuse and censor any efforts to do so.

@Consept
By building exactly the system you believe we already live in, just maybe in a even better way. With some huge and some minor improvements made and they sometime in the future an even more advanced system can be build along with the growth of humanity and so on into infinity.
I absolutely don't have anything against scientific research studies and relying on hard evidence, that would be great if this would be the case, but within a system where only parts of the truth are released and many parts are completely twisted around to fit certain agendas, I sadly have to make the cut here basically and just go against this system with all that I got. How do you think revolutions occured? Do you think revolutions go according to strict rules and are beautifully smooth?

a typical conspiracy theorist is not at all like ur describing they often have a big component of stage blue thinking but perhaps ur exceptional and in this case ur not a conspiracy theorist but simply an open minded person 

[LaucherJunge]

@Consept
Nope, as I said it has truths to it but clinging to them and supporting the system is not the way to go for me at least.
I honestly don't see the problem with their christian views and standpoints, it's a natural anti satanism reaction and is higher tier for me than the current satanism. Of course I would encourage these people to get into spirituality asap.

Such documentaries have been locked for a very long time, censored all around the web but now the censorship has been lifted a few weeks ago just a day after Trump visited Google. Make of that what you will.
Never before could a doc such as Out of Shadows get so viral as it has, 7.3 million views within 6 days on just the main upload, that's insane and it's nothing new actually, but anyone in the past who was trying to do such things has been killed, burried, threatened and censored.
As I said people are waking up, this is the Great Awakening.

A good way to get to the truth is, exactly the way you proposed all the time, I absolutely agree with you, science hard evidence is great but beyond that we need something that can include even spirituality into this whole picture.
And under the current circumstances for me the best way to get to information is just diving deep into conspiracy theories, staying open minded but not believing blindly, then double check from multiple sources, discover correlations and differences between their views, listen to Whistleblowers, look into actions people have done before being assassinated or "committed suicide" and put all of this in correlations, through your intuition making yourself a holistic view, upgrading it as you get more and more information, dismissing things that prove to be wrong and stay open minded to things which might be true. Now do you understand why this all is so hard to communicate? This is the tip of the iceberg.

@The observer
Maybe you just don't know the right conspiracy theorists or haven't opened up deeply enough to them and happened to be around the silly ones, I don't know.
I know that there are silly ones, but I've seen people at least as silly who aren't conspiracy theorists. What does this tell us? Not to label people that easily.

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Forestluv]

@LaucherJunge You are making one assumption that all your points are grounded on. That assumption is that conspiracy theory are valid and opposing views are invalid. 

To highlight this point, consider this mainstream view: eating vegetables is healthy for the body. Since we are skeptical of all “mainstream views” as being untrue. Let’s now believe the opposite: that eating vegetables is actually unhealthy for a body. We can create a conspiracy theory that involves the government, scientists, farmers, public health officials, grocery stores and the media. They are all conspiring together to dupe people into believing that eating vegetables is healthy. Duh! Of course it’s unhealthy - vegetables don’t even taste good!. . . We can continue to create a conspiracy theory. Why would scientists want to con us into thinking that eating vegetables is healthy? All those publications about vitamins and minerals are all BS. Hmmm, scientific journals are also in on this. Maybe the government will only fund research if the scientists show eating vegetables is healthy. But why would the corrupt government do this? Well it must be a form of mind control. Ah yes, this is how farmers are in on it. Notice how the government pays farmers subsidies and pays science research. Do you think these payments are free? Do you think the government is paying scientists to study healthy nutritional diets and paying farmers subsidies to grow vegetables to help society be healthier? The government? No way. I read online that the government is paying scientists and farmers to add mind-control chemicals into food. I read a report that a protozoan called Toxoplasma can enter the human brain and alter brain activity. Someone who says he is a doctor wrote that the government is paying scientists to grow Toxoplasma and paying farmers to add it into vegetables so the government can have mind control over us.  This doctor did research and found that people who eat a lot of vegetables have Toxoplasma in their brain. And guess what? This video was taken down off of YouTube. That video got over 1 million views and it scared the government, so they took the video down. And there was a health official blowing the whistle on Toxoplasma. She started a campaign to show how the government is altering vegetables for mind control. And she got fired. They said she was a conspiracy theorist and not fit to be a public health worker. That’s what happens when people try to tell the truth. They are censoring the truth. Most people aren’t open-minded enough to see how the government is hiding Toxoplasma in vegetables for mind control. They are a bunch of closed-minded sheep that believe anything the mainstream tells them - including the lie that vegetables are healthy to eat. That is why they are eating vegetables. They are now under Toxoplasma mind control and believe anything the government and the mainstream tells them. 

With the above conspiracy theory in mind, reconsider the points I made above on conspiracy theory dynamics. This should recontextualize things and give a fresh view. 

When the mind is immersed within a conspiracy theory, it is very difficult to see that it is involved in a conspiracy theory. One reason is that there are a few points of truth within the fallacious story. For example, in the above conspiracy theory it is true that the government pays farmers subsidies and funds most scientific research. As well, it is true that the protozoan Toxoplasma can enter the human brain. And it is partially true that Toxoplasma can alter brain activity (it has been shown that Toxoplasma can mind control rats, yet probably not humans). . . . The few points of truth serve as grounding on which to build the fallacy. These points of truth are inter-connected with partially true as well as false points. The gaps are filled in with speculation to create the storyline. Those immersed in the storyline are unable to see the structure of the storyline. It is like being immersed/attached/identified within a movie and being unaware of how movies are created.

[LaucherJunge]

@Serotoninluv

I am well aware of that assumption, but how else do you expect it to be, if it were so easy it all would have been uncovered by now.
Science is making assumptions either and somehow they lead to astonishing results.
You are making a mistake on here. You are pretending as if these Whistleblowers, censorship and assassinations/suicides in real cases are part of the theory, but they are facts, they are real. If there were enough Whistleblowers on your story and enough of people being killed over it and you would have the sources for that, why wouldn't I be open minded to this being true?

Was JFK a joke to you? Did you ever see his speeches before the assassination?
That was the tipping point where we completely lost.
Sinking of Titanic killed 3 of the richest people on the planet opposing the FED.
After that the FED was installed unconstitutionally and now Trump has taken their power away, Trump who was friends with JFK Jr. the Son of JFK who was murdered after saying what he said.
Like is this so hard to get?

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

 

@Serotoninluv
You are making a mistake on here. You are pretending as if these Whistleblowers, censorship and assassinations/suicides in real cases are part of the theory, but they are facts, they are real. If there were enough Whistleblowers on your story and enough of people being killed over it and you would have the sources for that, why wouldn't I be open minded to this being true?
 

Notice the mind thinking “what if”. . . “What if this happened? What is there was xyz?”. This type of speculation is also part of a conspiracy mindset. What happens is the “What if?” transforms into an assumption. This is super common with a conspiracy mindset and one of my points above. For example the question “What if there were enough Whistleblowers?”. . .transforms into an unconscious assumption that there are enough whistleblowers and the person will go on constructing as if that “What if” speculation was true. This is part of the process in adding in unsubstantiated points in which to ground the storyline. 

As well, there are a range of degrees of conspiracy theories along a spectrum. My post was about describing the mechanics of conspiracy theory, not to distinguish between various degrees of conspiracy theory. That is also an interesting question to explore, yet not what my post was about. 

In this area, I have found self-inquiry to be helpful. In this case self inquiries such as “What is a fact?”, “What is real?”, “What is open-minded?”. This is considered an advanced form of contemplation because the mind will try to ground itself in pre-conceived assumptions of meaning. A key is to let go of pre-conceived assumptions and think “perhaps I don’t fully know. I am going to set aside everything I think I know and contemplate with an empty mind”. This is critical, yet extremely difficult to do. Very few minds are capable of it and is one reason psychedelics are so powerful (they dissolved pre-conceived notions). The next layer of depth would be to contemplate with an empty mind, yet this is also difficult. At this stage many thoughts will enter and flood the mind to “figure it out”. The intellectual mind will want to ground itself by controlling the internal narrative. For example with the self inquiry question of “what is a fact?”, the mind will want to intellectualize about what facts are. Entering a deeper level (or meta level) involves letting go of the minds tendency to construct. The mind doesn’t want to sit in a groundless state with a question floating around. Yet if it can, this allows deeper insights to arise. Insights of deeper intuition, sense, and knowing - that comes ‘prior’ to the thought constructs. This is also called ‘implicit understanding’ and it is not how most minds are oriented. They are oriented toward explicit understanding. 

[LaucherJunge]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

Notice the mind thinking “what if”. . . “What if this happened? What is there was xyz?”. This type of speculation is also part of a conspiracy mindset. What happens is the “What if?” transforms into an assumption. This is super common with a conspiracy mindset and one of my points above. For example the question “What if there were enough Whistleblowers?”. . .transforms into an unconscious assumption that there are enough whistleblowers and the person will go on constructing as if that “What if” speculation was true. This is part of the process in adding in unsubstantiated points in which to ground the storyline. 

As well, there are a range of degrees of conspiracy theories along a spectrum. My post was about describing the mechanics of conspiracy theory, not to distinguish between various degrees of conspiracy theory. That is also an interesting question to explore, yet not what my post was about. 

In this area, I have found self-inquiry to be helpful. In this case self inquiries such as “What is a fact?”, “What is real?”, “What is open-minded?”. This is considered an advanced form of contemplation because the mind will try to ground itself in pre-conceived assumptions of meaning. A key is to let go of pre-conceived assumptions and think “perhaps I don’t fully know. I am going to set aside everything I think I know and contemplate with an empty mind”. This is critical, yet extremely difficult to do. Very few minds are capable of it and is one reason psychedelics are so powerful (they dissolved pre-conceived notions). The next layer of depth would be to contemplate with an empty mind, yet this is also difficult. At this stage many thoughts will enter and flood the mind to “figure it out”. The intellectual mind will want to ground itself by controlling the internal narrative. For example with the self inquiry question of “what is a fact?”, the mind will want to intellectualize about what facts are. Entering a deeper level (or meta level) involves letting go of the minds tendency to construct. The mind doesn’t want to sit in a groundless state with a question floating around. Yet if it can, this allows deeper insights to arise. Insights of deeper intuition, sense, and knowing - that comes ‘prior’ to the thought constructs. This is also called ‘implicit understanding’ and it is not how most minds are oriented. They are oriented toward explicit understanding. 

Nonsense.

This is not a what if, there ARE enough Whistleblowers, there are thousands of people speaking of those things! I am not pretending as if they are, go look for yourself.

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Serotoninluv

Was  JFK a joke to you? Did you ever see his speeches before the assassination?
That was the tipping point where we completely lost.
Sinking of Titanic killed 3 of the richest people on the planet opposing the FED.
After that the FED was installed unconstitutionally and now Trump has taken their power away, Trump who was friends with JFK Jr. the Son of JFK who was murdered after saying what he said.
Like is this so hard to get?

This is an example of immersion into content so deeply that one is not aware of their immersion/attachment/identification to the content. This makes it very difficult to have a meta view of content. It’s very difficult for most minds to have such a meta view because it involves letting go and transcending content that it is attached and identified with. 

This dynamic is not unique to conspiracy theorist. It is a fundamental aspect of self constructs and beliefs. 

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

Nonsense.

This is not a what if, there ARE enough Whistleblowers, there are thousands of people speaking of those things! I am not pretending as if they are, go look for yourself.

Please give me an example of a Whistleblower that has revealed the government is paying scientists and farmers to add Toxoplasma into vegetables to gain mind control over common people. That is the context. 

[LaucherJunge]

@Serotoninluv
Am I identified with that content or is it your defense mechanism to claim that I am?

I am not talking about whistleblowers on the theory you fabricated lmao.
I am talking about whistleblowers on all the other conspiracy theories.

Just answer this single question.
What was JFK talking about in his last speeches if not exactly this?!

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Serotoninluv
Am I identified with that content or is it your defense mechanism to claim that I am?

The mind is creating an entity called “Serotoninluv” and a story in which this entity is either claiming “I” am identified with content or this entity has been triggered into a defense mechanism. This is an internal conversation and debate of the mind. There is no difference if these mental dynamics are arising in “my” mind or “your” mind. These are simply mental dynamics with no owner. If we imagine two separate personal owners of minds (“me” and “you”), I cannot answer the question for you because you are creating your reality. Any answer I give you would go through your interpretive filter. This is at a surface level. The deeper level removes this interpersonal filter and allows space such that an answer of insight may arise. 

Notice how the mind tends to interpret impersonal observations as personal. This will block a mind from observing the transpersonal pointers. This is intuitively obvious: how can a mind observe trans-personally while it is personalizing as it’s own personal identity?. . . .  An aspect of transcendence is letting go of the tendency of personalization. This allows space for exploration and creativity. It is a form of liberation. 

[LaucherJunge]

@Serotoninluv
I absolutely agree and am aware of this. We all wear and have to wear masks to some extent though in this society. I absolutely don't see a problem with embodying what I wish to embody. I've experienced states which were states of no desire and from my view this is something that is eternal and will always be there for us, this life here is something special that we can have play with and have fun with, do with it what ever we want, this life is what at least seems limited and by being that it is very special and prescious in comparison to the infinity we really are. And what I see is the liberation of people that is happening and will be happening in the next months and years maybe. The Great Awakening.

In the last post it was the best response I could come up with considering what you wrote wasn't true, I am not identified with these beliefs at all. I guess I got defensive right there myself, answering with silence wouldn't keep the discussion going would it?
But of course I see how one could assume this and there is no way for you to actually know if I really am not attached or attached to these beliefs or facts.
I would still like that answer though. I mean these JFK speeches should be easily accessible for everyone "you" and "me", no matter how relative you make reality out to be.

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Scholar]

25 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

What was JFK talking about in his last speeches if not exactly this?!

Communism.

[LaucherJunge]

This one is great. how can you dismiss it all so easily?

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day."

“It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

Edited April 16, 2020 by LaucherJunge