Conspiracy “theories” are fear based?

[Jahmaine]

If someone discovers that someone is trying to kill you, for a fact, then tells you about it, is that a fear based conspiracy? And who’s projecting the fear, the one alerting the other or the one receiving it?

or is too “us vs them”? - what does that mean though in this context? How does it make it worth not entertaining? - coz we’re all one and it doesn’t matter? 

Whats the thought process here? 

Would alerting Jesus he’s about to get put on a cross be a fear based conspiracy theory to just ignore? 

Would Martin Luther king fighting for a racial inequality be “us vs them”?  So should’ve not acted upon it? Or all the monks around were too spiritual to participate or agree? 

What does the us vs them mentality mean? Division? does that mean because we’re all one that all goes for everyone? What’s the thought process behind that and why does it make invalid? 

If someone tells me “hey that group of people are trying rape your daughter and kill you, here’s the proof, do what you want with it”  if I feel fear does that mean it’s because the person told me it is fear based or is it because fear arose in me and I projected it?

 

[Kensho]

2 minutes ago, Jahmaine said:

If someone tells me “hey that group of people are trying rape your daughter and kill you, here’s the proof, do what you want with it”

If there is proof, that's a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. 99% of conspiracy theories don't have any legitimate proof. There are numerous articles online that explain the psychology of the conspiracy theorist.

In a generalized point of view, it's their way of escaping from taking responsibility for their lives and looking inward. Their ego loves acclaiming oneself as the "awaken". 

(the conspiracy theorist who respect himself will of course say that these articles are creation of the system in order to make people stay way from them and not "awaken" )

[AlphaAbundance]

Haha be careful with collapsing all distinctions. Yes its relative but dont make it to the point where the distinction loses its meaning.

Fear based conspiracy theories generally refers to theories created or arised from fear not theories that are associated with fear. 

[Jahmaine]

Just now, Kensho said:

If there is proof, that's a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. 99% of conspiracy theories don't have any legitimate proof. There are numerous articles online that explain the psychology of the conspiracy theorist.

In a generalized point of view, it's their way of escaping from taking responsibility for their lives and looking inward. Their ego loves acclaiming oneself as the "awaken". 

(the conspiracy theorist who respect himself will of course say that these articles are creation of the system in order to make people stay way from them and not "awaken" )

Yeah that makes sense. So if there is proof for it then does it make it fear based? If I found on Leo’s laptop he had a secret plan to kill everyone at a workshop and I told everyone- does that make me a fear based conspiracy theorist? Am I projecting fear? Should I be dismissed? 

What if took a picture of the plan and said “here look”, but no one looked at it and then just said I’m tryna scare people because my psychology is fucked up and I just can’t accept responsibility for my life? Then what? Would I just be being a silly deluded person? 

[Jahmaine]

2 minutes ago, AlphaAbundance said:

Haha be careful with collapsing all distinctions. Yes its relative but dont make it to the point where the distinction loses its meaning.

Fear based conspiracy theories generally refers to theories created or arised from fear not theories that are associated with fear. 

Yeah that’s fair enough, I guess you could say in my example above there was a “fear” that someone else could die - but also I could choose to have genuine concern and compassion - so it’s a choice of perspective - a choice between fear and love. 

- should we be more eco-friendly to the world because we’re scared of all dying, or because we genuinely care about the sake of the planet? who decides what perspective we have? Who is responsible for how someone feels? If I tell you information and you get scared is that my fault or you fault? 

[AlphaAbundance]

11 minutes ago, Jahmaine said:

- should we be more eco-friendly to the world because we’re scared of all dying, or because we genuinely care about the sake of the planet? who decides what perspective we have? Who is responsible for how someone feels? If I tell you information and you get scared is that my fault or you fault? 

I'll take my try at these questions. 

• What do you mean by should? By who's authority? By what book? By what's best? What determines what is best? Is what is best determined by net happiness of everyone and/or the individual being eco-friendly? ----- That being said it seems like both would be ideal, the more developed someone is the more they are likely to care about the "sake of the planet". ----- What do you mean by planet? The sentient beings on the planet? The living beings on the planet? The planet itself?
• In general and maybe even in this specific case, perspective is determined by environment, genetics, personality, identity, etc. In the absolute sense it seems like we have no free will and there is no "we" to have free will. 
• It is my perspective that the optimal perspective here is believing, or realizing that the person feeling it has the responsibility
• Fault is all subjective, you can see it either way as you being the one that introduced this information to an individual. And it can also be see as that individual being the one that allowed themself to feel the emotion. This ties into above (probably purposefully) with it being best to see it as the responsibility (or fault) of the person having the emotions.

 

[Kensho]

24 minutes ago, Jahmaine said:

What if took a picture of the plan and said “here look”, but no one looked at it and then just said I’m tryna scare people because my psychology is fucked up and I just can’t accept responsibility for my life? Then what? Would I just be being a silly deluded person? 

It depends on the background story too. If Alex Jones at some point finds something legit and points it out, people will dismiss it because he has created a certain non-credible image of himself.  

And of course it's based on fear. Where else could it be based? 

[Jahmaine]

1 minute ago, Kensho said:

It depends on the background story too. If Alex Jones at some point finds something legit and points it out, people will dismiss it because he has created a certain non-credible image of himself.  

And of course it's based on fear. Where else could it be based? 

So if Alex Jones said it and proved it, then people dismiss it? But if someone “credible” done the exact same thing, then it’d be more taken seriously? - if it’s just a transfer of information, literally just saying “look at this, what do you think?” then I don’t really feel like the person saying or showing it really matters; can a scam artist teach you 5 x 5 = 25 with the working out there, or you going to no believe him and dismiss it because you think he’s most likely lying?

wheres the critical thinking? It is what it is, if someone is presenting a case that they claim they can validate, unless you validate it yourself then it’s just hear-say or the opposite being ad-hominem. 

Like I said in the message above, where’s the fear coming from, if I tell you something and you get scared then that’s your responsibility, you don’t have to be scared by it- in this case of Alex Jones, is he only doing it because he’s scared? Perhaps. But it can also be because he genuinely cares, I could have “fear” for your life, in a genuine compassionate way, so it really depends on how the person is expressing it and how the people receive it.

[LaucherJunge]

13 minutes ago, Kensho said:

And of course it's based on fear. Where else could it be based? 

It could be based in compassion and love, helping others and reducing suffering.

@Jahmaine
Absolutely get your point here, I come across this all the time. They simply assume that there is no evidence and I understand why they do, because there usually is no hard evidence. Hard evidence is very easy to make disappear. It's the circumstancial evidence that's huge in many cases and people dismiss it because they look at each and every piece independently and so the theory loses credit for them due to lack of this hard evidence. While people who look at the whole or a big part of the evidence that's out there may start to notice that many of these theories can't be that far off.

I mean we have to really be honest here. There were conspiracy theories that were proven to be true, like Epsteins case for example. Now how many people and children could have been saved and helped if these theories were not so easily dismissed.

Edited April 26, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Jahmaine]

12 minutes ago, AlphaAbundance said:

I'll take my try at these questions. 

• What do you mean by should? By who's authority? By what book? By what's best? What determines what is best? Is what is best determined by net happiness of everyone and/or the individual being eco-friendly? ----- That being said it seems like both would be ideal, the more developed someone is the more they are likely to care about the "sake of the planet". ----- What do you mean by planet? The sentient beings on the planet? The living beings on the planet? The planet itself?
• In general and maybe even in this specific case, perspective is determined by environment, genetics, personality, identity, etc. In the absolute sense it seems like we have no free will and there is no "we" to have free will. 
• It is my perspective that the optimal perspective here is believing, or realizing that the person feeling it has the responsibility
• Fault is all subjective, you can see it either way as you being the one that introduced this information to an individual. And it can also be see as that individual being the one that allowed themself to feel the emotion. This ties into above (probably purposefully) with it being best to see it as the responsibility (or fault) of the person having the emotions.

 

Yeah I get that exactly and it makes sense. 

My whole point being that Leo talks about conspiracy theories from “David Icke and Alex jones” as though they’re only fear based and have an Us vs Them complex, I’m just questioning what that actually means and does that mean It’s something to ignore?

 

so I’m a simplistic form my question is basically like saying: Am I a crazy deluded person that’s only doing it for money and can’t take responsibility for my life if I tell you that I found out someone wants to kills you? And because of the Us vs Them complex, does it not matter because we’re all one?

 

because that way of thinking is what I’m getting from what Leo’s been sayin, correct me, show me where I’m misinformed. 

[Tanz]

Its a good question. 

Yes, conspiracy theories are fear-based, even if they are true.

The notion of a separate self is an illusion. This breakdown to conspiracy theory as a fight against yourself.  We consistently self conspire against ourselves. 

[AlphaAbundance]

Hmmmmm maybe since they have a history of having fear-based and us vs them based conspiracy theories, it can be argued to ignore them. I think fear-based and us vs them conspiracy theories are considered bad because they promote inaccuracies and unressourceful mindsets, beliefs and action. Therefore if they have a habit of these actions, the probability of a theory they have being a accurate, well thought or evidence based theory is low therefore one can determine if they want to follow them based on that information. (I'm speaking from what I heard of Alex Jones and David Icke not from reading their material or doing any time of research on them ---- but that goes to show how shitty their reputation is, maybe I will give them a shot)

No but if you end up being incorrect or have no evidence it can be argued that you are this crazy, deluded person.

The Us Vs. Them complex, I believe, simply points to inaccuracies and bias in certain theories or perspectives that lead to less or unressourceful thinking, mindsets and actions

In the absolute sense it does not matter, the universe endorses these things (that's why its here ta dah).

Edited April 26, 2020 by AlphaAbundance

[Kensho]

12 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

It could be based in compassion and love, helping others and reducing suffering.
 

If one reaches such levels of consciousness that automaticaly makes him being able to see the truth and he would never create conspiracy theories.

To put it in a perspective, take the Plato's cave allegory. To do things out of true love and compassion it means that you have gotten out of the cave and you want to help your friends who struggle inside it.

Conpiracy theories are created in the cave out of fear. People see the shadows on the wall and make stories out of them.

[Nak Khid]

1 hour ago, Jahmaine said:

Yeah that makes sense. So if there is proof for it then does it make it fear based? If I found on Leo’s laptop he had a secret plan to kill everyone at a workshop and I told everyone- does that make me a fear based conspiracy theorist? Am I projecting fear? Should I be dismissed? 

What if took a picture of the plan and said “here look”, but no one looked at it and then just said I’m tryna scare people because my psychology is fucked up and I just can’t accept responsibility for my life? Then what? Would I just be being a silly deluded person? 

A conspiracy theory is a theory. It can't be compared to hard and clear evidence of a murder plot. 

Why do people like conspiracy theories?   Often because.   it makes them seem like they are part of a small group that know something that the average person doesn't.   Another reason is that they may have a preconceived notion that a certain group is to blame for everything and some particular theory supports that idea.   These are the two big motivations I think.  Another motivation is that it can be create. You can impress people wit the cleverness of the theory

That doesn't mean conspiracies don't exist. It doesn't mean that there are not real secret plots going on. 

But since they are so easy to make up people do so, tons every day. The internet has made it very easy.   Anybody can make a youtube video it could go viral

[LaucherJunge]

@Kensho
Levels of consciousness that are needed to automatically know all happenings of duality are levels which the human body wouldn't survive. You would have to die physically beforehand or could possibility have it for brief moments and then it's forgotten.

Conspiracy theories are created out of fear and ended by love and compassion towards the victims of the conspirators, if they happen to be true.

Edited April 26, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Jahmaine]

Alright, you’ve all made great points.

What if I frame it like this: those that are less conscious are destroying the world and trying to manipulate everyone else? 

We know from spiral dynamics and such like that the “lower developed” people are prone to this type of behaviour. So as has been pointed out by many, this “great awakening” is intertwined with the “conspiracy” - basically can humanity become conscious enough to stop us from destroying ourselves. Then the “conspiracy theorists” are just detailing how the unconscious mind is creating havoc - with the intention of increasing awareness and spirituality amongst those that are less conscious?

you could say it’s the Biblical Armageddon - with consciousness keep humanity alive or will unconsciousness destroy us. 

 

Also with conspiracy theories, just like religions, just like cults - if you don’t validate the truth in them for yourself and live by it, you just come across like it’s a belief for you and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Imagine a Christian that just “believes” all the stories, compared with a Christian that’s studied in depth and extrapolated the truth from it, they could still be the same things, but the later would have a genuine understand and validation to what they’re saying - the same is with conspiracies, some just believe it and don’t know what they’re talking about - many for a sense of community, but then there’s some that take it seriously and can validate what they say, same thing happens on this forum, there’s all these mini Leo’s that just say what he says but clearly have no in depth understanding and how Leo articulated it, which is obvious in the way that they explain it - just like in this work, if you don’t validate it for yourself then you’re just talking nonsense, you literally have no idea what you’re talking about, it’s just a belief.

 

[AlphaAbundance]

@LaucherJunge Haha reality is infinite so it seems anything is possible even humans being able to have such levels of consciousness. Maybe not currently in this reality but it seems there would be infinite realities with humans where this has to be case. One would have to assume reality is infinite of course

Edited April 26, 2020 by AlphaAbundance

[LaucherJunge]

@AlphaAbundance That's the problem dude. Reality being infinite makes it impossible for a being with limitations to grasp it all. That's why we'll have to die and yes we also live in eternity so it's inevitable that this will be reached eventually, but as soon as it's reached it can't be held here anymore. Duality will become non-duality.

[AlphaAbundance]

@Jahmaine If people validated these conspiracy theories then they wouldn't be conspiracy theories --- they would be on national television (or if that is blocked) they would be on the internet.

Hold up that is what is happening here..... Wait a second...

????

Edited April 26, 2020 by AlphaAbundance

[AlphaAbundance]

@LaucherJunge Yes it seems it would be impossible for any being to reach the end of infinity and grasp it all however for someone to reach a level of consciousness where they can validate conspiracy theories isnt reaching the end of infinity and grasping the totality of infinity. It's in the direction of infinity but not infinity.