The psychology of conspiracy theories

[zerostao]

31 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Thank you.

 

I'm mostly done too, and have zero desire (though not zerostao level zero yet  ) to even try to convince anyone of anything if I happen to think they're too far gone.  Only when there's a glimmer of hope, when I care, when I despair watching good people get sucked into bad causes, I might try something.   Less and less though.  Soon to reach absolute zero I'm sure.   

 

 

It's rare I quote Stephen King, 

Rightly tired of the pain I hear & feel, boss...where we 's coming from or goin to or why...if icould end it, I would, but i can't 

 

Leaving for a new thread,,,

[qofq]

On 8/14/2020 at 10:54 AM, Taomeow said:

entheogen users not corrupted by irredeemable karma

 

Would you mind to take a moment and explain to me your thoughts and/or experiences in regards to the concept or "irredeemable Karma"?

 

I've experienced Karma in a number of ways.  Indeed we all have =)   but I see encountering different sticky patterns and density of qi, and the higher propensities for encountering events that produce said Qi's has a type of Karmic element to it.  People have mentioned the string of pearls up the central channel and similarly to that I've seen a string going forward in time and seen futures live unravel.  Resonances with people, places, times, events.  

 

But never anything about Irredeemable karma. 

 

Have any of your Daoist teachers expounded on the topic to you?   

 

 

[RobB]

[Taomeow]

 

This one is easy for most but not all.  Now imagine how much more complex it may be to see a pattern in a much more complex picture of the world itself. 

 

Coincidence theorists see disjointed "dots" of events, nothing more.  But a trained visionary sees the picture -- it practically jumps out of the background.  It's different from imposing a picture that isn't there.  This is something routinely done by those who manipulate our picture of reality far more often than by "conspiracy theorists."  They continuously supply maps that not only are not the territory but depict a territory that does not exist.    

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

10 hours ago, qofq said:

 

Would you mind to take a moment and explain to me your thoughts and/or experiences in regards to the concept or "irredeemable Karma"?

 

I've experienced Karma in a number of ways.  Indeed we all have =)   but I see encountering different sticky patterns and density of qi, and the higher propensities for encountering events that produce said Qi's has a type of Karmic element to it.  People have mentioned the string of pearls up the central channel and similarly to that I've seen a string going forward in time and seen futures live unravel.  Resonances with people, places, times, events.  

 

But never anything about Irredeemable karma. 

 

Have any of your Daoist teachers expounded on the topic to you?   

 

 

 

I was only referring to my subjective understanding and experience based on my acquaintance with an entheogen (ayahuasca) which refuses to teach those whose karma is "irredeemable," but on what basis it is decided, I don't know.  She "showed" but didn't "tell." 

 

As for taoist teachers, their views on karma vary widely, and taoists of different schools may disagree with each other, but generally it is thought of as a kind of accumulation, of either merit (toward return to balance) or nastiness (toward more and more imbalance).  It may be generational or individual.  Generational karma may be "irredeemable" -- it causes a kind of transformation in descendants that turns them into, for all purposes, a different species, and you can arrive at a species that is not capable of accumulating merit and restoring balance.  An example would be a generation descended from a lineage of genetic manipulations, transhumanism, progressively more invasive man-machine merger.  On this road there comes a juncture where the species parts ways with natural biological life and any chance of arriving at a balance with nature disappears.  Merit disappears because free will disappears.  This kind of karma becomes too overwhelming to correct.          

[forestofemptiness]

Well, again, I think you're being a bit black and white about this. It is not one or the other. There are gradations and shades of grey, as with all things. However, the issue here is unfalsifiability. If you present a premise that cannot be falsified, i.e. tested, then the proposition is basically a dogma--- merely to be accepted or believed. 

 

So you can "see" whatever pattern you want, and then when some one disagrees, you can say that they do really see the big picture. This was a common way Marxists and Freudians handled objections to their theories-- if you did not agree, it was because you were too repressed (Freud) or brainwashed by capitalist culture (Marx) to see things as they really are. How is this different than saying, "if you don't agree, it is because you've been successfully manipulated by the conspiracy?" 

 

5 hours ago, Taomeow said:

Coincidence theorists see disjointed "dots" of events, nothing more.  But a trained visionary sees the picture -- it practically jumps out of the background.  It's different from imposing a picture that isn't there.  This is something routinely done by those who manipulate our picture of reality far more often than by "conspiracy theorists."  They continuously supply maps that not only are not the territory but depict a territory that does not exist.    

 

 

 

[Taomeow]

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Well, again, I think you're being a bit black and white about this. It is not one or the other. There are gradations and shades of grey, as with all things. However, the issue here is unfalsifiability. If you present a premise that cannot be falsified, i.e. tested, then the proposition is basically a dogma--- merely to be accepted or believed. 

 

So you can "see" whatever pattern you want, and then when some one disagrees, you can say that they do really see the big picture. This was a common way Marxists and Freudians handled objections to their theories-- if you did not agree, it was because you were too repressed (Freud) or brainwashed by capitalist culture (Marx) to see things as they really are. How is this different than saying, "if you don't agree, it is because you've been successfully manipulated by the conspiracy?" 

 

 

 

I don't know.  Did someone say that?  Who was it?  

 

Definitely not me.  I don't believe in "conspiracy theory/theorist" labels being either semantically or ethically valid terms to express any meaningful thought or sentiment to begin with (please see my post from Friday) --

 

anymore than I believe in the Stalinist label "enemies of the people" accurately describing any category of people, and "counterrevolutionary activities" as an object of the establishment's wrath of the period having anything to do with any activities (or lack thereof) that used to merit the designation and cost millions their lives; 

or in McCarthy's definition of "communist" that in most cases targeted people who had nothing whatsoever to do with communism;

or the Salem Witches Trial prosecuting and murdering anyone other than ordinary human women labeled "witches"; 

or in Freud's "penis envy" or "Oedipus complex" and the rest of that cowardly dishonest sell-out banter covering up what he knew about the real cause of many of his patients' problems -- childhood sexual abuse, including incest; 

 

or any number of other straw dogs in my path, whether ancient and moldy and falling apart or brand new and shiny.  I am in the habit of stepping over them and looking for who throws them in our path and toward what purpose. 

 

Sometimes I find out, and it's pretty eye-opening.  Sometimes I find out nothing fishy is going on, they're just making those straw dog toys because they're paid to make them.  Children need toys to keep them occupied, right? 

 

And sometimes the discovery makes my hair stand on end.  But don't worry.  I don't share those on TDB.  That would serve no purpose.  

Edited August 17, 2020 by Taomeow

[Daemon]

Quote

Erik Davis on the Cosmic Right

 

Jeremy Gilbert talks to Erik Davis, scholar of weird culture, mysticism, and the fertile crossover between esoterica and politics. From gnostic revivals to conspiracy theories, the JFK assassination to QAnon – why does there seem to be a sudden resurgence in conspiracy theories, sometimes in the most unexpected corners? Is there a connection between conspiracy theory and the ‘California Ideology’? And does rationalism always triumph in politics?

Erik’s latest book, High Weirdness, is out now.

https://novaramedia.com/2020/08/13/microdose-erik-davis-on-the-cosmic-right/

 

☮️

 

[Daemon]

How QAnon works like a video game to hook people.

 

e.g.

 

Quote

QAnon gives many believers a sense of community and belonging, and many spend hours daily talking to each other and sharing discoveries over social media.

 

https://www.axios.com/qanon-video-game-cbbacb1e-969c-4f07-93cd-69e41bc6feeb.html

 

☮️

 

[Taomeow]

51 minutes ago, Daemon said:

How QAnon works like a video game to hook people.

 

 

Reminded me of an episode I just read in a novel where the main female protagonist tells the main male protagonist, as he grabs a gun getting ready to face some potentially dangerous people, "oh no! I don't believe in guns!"  The guy then takes her hand, puts the gun in her palm and closes her fingers around it.  "What are you doing?" she recoils.  "I'm trying to convince you that guns exist.  They are real.  You may like or dislike them, but it's something that is there, its existence does not depend on your believing or not believing in them.  And those other guys have them, you better believe it."  Quoting from memory.

 

QAnon was created by someone somewhere for some purpose.  And it doesn't matter if one believes or doesn't believe in QAnon -- if it was created by more people than one secretly agreeing to create this kind of online presence, toward whatever goals, it's a conspiracy, by legal definition of what a conspiracy is.  Not a conspiracy theory.  A conspiracy fact.    

 

So the main psychological peculiarity of those who "don't believe in conspiracy theories" consists in not believing that whoever they consider the good guys ever conspire in secret toward their goals, but whoever they consider the bad guys do it all the time.  The cognitive dissonance goes unnoticed.   

 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Taomeow

[Daemon]

51 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Reminded me of an episode I just read in a novel where the main female protagonist tells the main male protagonist, as he grabs a gun getting ready to face some potentially dangerous people, "oh no! I don't believe in guns!"  The guy then takes her hand, puts the gun in her palm and closes her fingers around it.  "What are you doing?" she recoils.  "I'm trying to convince you that guns exist.  They are real.  You may like or dislike them, but it's something that is there, its existence does not depend on your believing or not believing in them.  And those other guys have them, you better believe it."  Quoting from memory.

 

QAnon was created by someone somewhere for some purpose.  And it doesn't matter if one believes or doesn't believe in QAnon -- if it was created by more people than one secretly agreeing to create this kind of online presence, toward whatever goals, it's a conspiracy, by legal definition of what a conspiracy is.  Not a conspiracy theory.  A conspiracy fact.    

 

So the main psychological peculiarity of those who "don't believe in conspiracy theories" consists in not believing that whoever they consider the good guys ever conspire in secret toward their goals, but whoever they consider the bad guys do it all the time.  The cognitive dissonance goes unnoticed.   

 

 

 

Quote

When told by a reporter about the central premise of the QAnon theory — a belief that Mr. Trump is saving the world from a satanic cult made up of pedophiles and cannibals connected to Democratic Party figures, so-called deep-state actors and Hollywood celebrities — Mr. Trump did not question the validity of the movement or the truth of those claims.

Instead, he offered his help.

 

Quote

QAnon’s origins are murky. In October 2017, a post appeared on the 4chan message board from an anonymous account calling itself “Q Clearance Patriot.” This poster, who became known simply as “Q,” claimed to be an intelligence officer with access to classified information about a war Mr. Trump was waging against the global cabal.

According to QAnon lore, Mr. Trump was recruited by top military generals to run for president in 2016 in order to break up the cabal’s criminal conspiracy, end its control of politics and the media, and bring its members to justice.

It has also incorporated elements of other conspiracy theories, including claims about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the existence of U.F.O.s and the 9/11 “truther” movement.

 

Quote

“QAnon conspiracy theorists spread disinformation and foster a climate of extremism and paranoia, which in some cases has led to violence. Condemning this movement should not be difficult,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League. “It’s downright dangerous when a leader not only refuses to do so, but also wonders whether what they are doing is ‘a good thing.’”

 

Quote

“I’m not surprised at all by his reaction, and I don’t think QAnon conspirators are surprised either. It’s terrifying,” Vanessa Bouché, an associate professor of political science at Texas Christian University, said in an interview. “In a democratic society, we make decisions based on information. And if people are believing these lies, then we’re in a very dangerous position.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/us/politics/trump-qanon-conspiracy-theories.html

 

☮️

 

[Taomeow]

@Daemon Can't say I have the foggiest what all the quotes you linked after quoting my post have to do with it.  I made a specific point.  Maybe you misunderstood me?  

[Daemon]

8 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

@Daemon Can't say I have the foggiest what all the quotes you linked after quoting my post have to do with it.  I made a specific point.  Maybe you misunderstood me?  

Maybe.

 

☮️

 

[Daemon]

 

Quote

How the new conspiracists are undermining democracy―and what can be done about it. Conspiracy theories are as old as politics. But conspiracists today have introduced something new―conspiracy without theory. And the new conspiracism has moved from the fringes to the heart of government with the election of Donald Trump. In A Lot of People Are Saying, Russell Muirhead and Nancy Rosenblum show how the new conspiracism differs from classic conspiracy theory, how it undermines democracy, and what needs to be done to resist it. Classic conspiracy theory insists that things are not what they seem and gathers evidence—especially facts ominously withheld by official sources—to tease out secret machinations. The new conspiracism is different. There is no demand for evidence, no dots revealed to form a pattern, no close examination of shadowy plotters. Dispensing with the burden of explanation, the new conspiracism imposes its own reality through repetition (exemplified by the Trump catchphrase "a lot of people are saying") and bare assertion ("rigged!"). The new conspiracism targets democratic foundations—political parties and knowledge-producing institutions. It makes it more difficult to argue, persuade, negotiate, compromise, and even to disagree. Ultimately, it delegitimates democracy. Filled with vivid examples, A Lot of People Are Saying diagnoses a defining and disorienting feature of today's politics and offers a guide to responding to the threat.

 

☮️

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Daemon

[Daemon]

The point is that by definiition it is facts that separate facts from fantasies (i.e. conspiracy theories).
It is by digging out the facts that reputable journalists and

scientists unearth the truth. The (reputable) historian Timothy Snyder urges people to challenge themselves to respect the truth and to develop their critical faculties by reading properly-researched, properly-referenced books and long articles[1] (instead of relying on the conspiracy theory memes regurgitated by conspiracy theorists in such places as bulletin boards, Twitter feeds and 4Chan).

To succumb to conspiracy theories is not only to succumb to tyranny but to be recruited as a useful idiot to support them by propagating the chaos that tyrants spread.

 

☮️

 

[1] Snyder, T. On Tyranny. (2017). Review - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/02/24/20-ways-to-recognize-tyranny-and-fight-it/

 

[Taomeow]

Ah, thank you for elaborating, I get the point.  Whatever does not originate with corporate/syndicated media sources is a tyranny/conspiracy theory and these two terms are interchangeable.  Yup, that makes total sense.     

[Daemon]

A final word on the danger of QAnon published by the West Point Combating [sic] Terrorism Centre. An article with 10 substantive notes

making 111 citations, written by authors with relevant academic credentials.

 

https://ctc.usma.edu/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-security-threat-in-the-making/

 

Quote

Conclusion
In this article, the authors have sought to contextualize QAnon ideology and its role in radicalizing several individuals to alleged high-profile criminal or violent acts. The recent case of Jessica Prim, on which the authors present original data, particularly evinces the role the QAnon ecosystem may play in radicalizing uniquely vulnerable individuals with experiences of trauma or mental illness and the consequent threat QAnon could pose to public security.

 

[...]

 

 

before moving on to a concrete example of how the facts behind another conspiracy theory (possible vote rigging in North American elections) are being excavated. Hopefully, this issue will further illustrate the knife-edge, touched upon by both Gary Kasparov and Timothy Snyder) that must be walked by any reputable journalist to avoid being legitimately labelled as a conspiracy theorist.

 

☮️

 

[Daemon]

32 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Ah, thank you for elaborating, I get the point.  Whatever does not originate with corporate/syndicated media sources is a tyranny/conspiracy theory and these two terms are interchangeable.  Yup, that makes total sense.     

 

 

Straw man. Ignored.

 

☮️

 

[zerostao]

3 hours ago, Daemon said:

The point is that by definiition it is facts that separate facts from fantasies (i.e. conspiracy theories).
It is by digging out the facts that reputable journalists and

scientists unearth the truth. The (reputable) historian Timothy Snyder urges people to challenge themselves to respect the truth and to develop their critical faculties by reading properly-researched, properly-referenced books and long articles[1] (instead of relying on the conspiracy theory memes regurgitated by conspiracy theorists in such places as bulletin boards, Twitter feeds and 4Chan).

To succumb to conspiracy theories is not only to succumb to tyranny but to be recruited as a useful idiot to support them by propagating the chaos that tyrants spread.

 

☮️

 

[1] Snyder, T. On Tyranny. (2017). Review - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/02/24/20-ways-to-recognize-tyranny-and-fight-it/

 

That is half right. It expresses one side of the coin. your commentary. Garry nails it. 

Edited August 23, 2020 by zerostao

[Daemon]

1 minute ago, zerostao said:

That is half right. It expresses one side of the coin.

 

What do you consider to be the other side?

 

☮️

 

[zerostao]

5 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

What do you consider to be the other side?

 

☮️

 

Five years ago anyone could go to You Tube and watch LBJ mention unnamed "others" involved with the JFK assassination. 

Five years ago you could watch 41 telling Betty Ford the only reason anyone believed the Warren commission's finding that a lone deluded gunman was responsible was bc Jerry Ford signed off on it.

You could still see the photograph of who was standing at the entrance of the Texas school book depository moments before shots rang out. 

So disinformation is also used to cover up the crimes that "conspiracy theorists" point to.

[Daemon]

If you are making the point that some conspiracy theories are rooted in fact, I've already acknowledged that possibility and, as also stated, I am about to address it using the specific example of possible vote rigging in USA elections.

 

☮️

 

[zerostao]

5 minutes ago, Daemon said:

If you are making the point that some conspiracy theories are rooted in fact, I've already acknowledged that possibility and, as also stated, I am about to address it using the specific example of possible vote rigging in USA elections.

 

☮️

 

That's what happens when i try and stay away from s thread, then peek at at the latest post. 

[Daemon]

🎣

 

☮️

 

[Daemon]

To begin, some background reading on possible election rigging in the USA from Jennifer Cohn's Twitter [1] feed (ironically).

 

#RealityWinner

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1115806204918263808.html

 

☮️

 

[1] https://twitter.com/jennycohn1/status/1285962760979746817?s=19