Do you believe in Conspiracy Theories? When you read that question I imagine that you had one of two distinct reactions. One reaction could have been positive as in ‘Sure I believe in conspiracies or some of them anyway’. The opposite reaction and judging from a lot of news outlets would be negative or something along the lines of ‘only lunatics believe in conspiracy theories’. For years I have wondered why conspiracies were something that “smart” people simply couldn’t believe at best. At worst, some reacted almost violently to the suggestion that anything secret could have happened. Furthermore, anyone who was dumb enough to believe in conspiracies was mocked, laughed at and generally discounted. An opinion or belief that ran counter to what the enlightened believed, was the height of stupidity.
Where did this come from and when did it become “stupid” to investigate? When did we all decide it was crazy to question the official story when the facts didn’t make sense? In order to find out what the problem with conspiracy theories is, I decided to look up the definition of conspiracy just to set a level playing field. The definition below is from
the act of conspiring.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Law. An agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
That seems pretty straight forward right? A conspiracy is simply a secret plan to do something illegal or bad. If we can agree on that, I want to also look up the definition of conspiracy theory because it is very different at least according to dictionary.com.
A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
So the not so subtle difference here between conspiracy and conspiracy theory should only be the theory part, correct? The word conspiracy should stay the same and that is an act committed in secrecy and usually that secretive act is illegal or evil. There aren’t too many secretive acts of loving kindness that we get all upset about.
To me, you add theory in there and that should only clarify that there is a belief or hypothetical scenario that someone conspired to keep something illegal a secret. According tohowever, the addition of theory seems to discount there was ever a conspiracy in the first place and starts moving to “political events”, “economic and social trends” and my personal favorite “secret plots”. The implication to me is that none of these things can be influenced in secret by bad people to do bad things.
Why is an idea that people dispute called a Conspiracy Theory?
My wife and I play this game from time to time about conspiracies. She is definitely the more level headed of the two of us. She does her research and likes to see both sides of a story usually. I on the other hand go with my gut almost every time. I am willing to be proven wrong though and I don’t think I am blind to overwhelming evidence to the contrary of my current opinion. With conspiracies or what we commonly refer to as conspiracies now, there doesn’t always seem to be much evidence to point to. Any belief to the contrary is countered mainly with logic arguments. “It just doesn’t make any sense that they would try to blow up a plane”. The one my wife likes to throw out frequently is that it would be impossible for the government to do anything in secret. Actually, it goes further than that. She believes that almost nothing is able to be kept secret for very long if at all and if anything secretive or illegal would have happened, we would have heard about it by now. If I bring up anything close to a conspiracy theory she wants facts and proof. When I can’t provide either in sufficient detail then what I believe is discounted and the more public or common explanation is usually what she believes. Not always, but more often than not. She has come a long way in recent years if that tells you anything about the nature of things happening in our world now and can see sinister motives behind events more easily than before. She has not gone completely over to my side, but she doesn’t discount theories immediately anymore.
The term Conspiracy Theory is used commonly now to imply that detractor’s opinions and in some cases even compelling evidence to the official story they have zero basis in fact. Just the simple act of having a different opinion on what possibly might have happened could be all the cause that some people need to discount you and think you are an idiot. Take Benghazi and the recent news of a House Committee being formed to investigate what happened to 4 Americans in 2012. The White House has said that anyone who believes anything other than their story of that night in September is engaging in Conspiracy Theory. To me, this is the same as saying if you don’t believe what I am telling you, you are a kook. What happened to “Question Everything”? What happened to critical thinking? Why are we stupid if we don’t believe everything we are told?
At least that is how I take it. Let’s take just a few of the big ones. How about the assassination of JFK? If you think for a second that there is something odd with details around this historic event and how it was carried out solely by Lee Harvey Oswald, you are a conspiracy theorist. By calling you a conspiracy theorist, the person talking about you is trying to say that you are completely wrong and may have a mental deficiency or that you are trying to infer something secretive and illegal was planned.
Another juicy one is Building 7 of the World Trade Center. If you wonder how a building that wasn’t even hit by a plane came down on the same day in the same exact fashion as two buildings that were, you aren’t being inquisitive. You are a nut-job that needs to shut-up. Never mind the fact that fire, the stated reason for the building’s collapse doesn’t seem to make any other steel buildings collapse like a pancake in a few hours, you aren’t supposed to ask any questions about that. What is wrong with asking questions and why does the simple act of asking questions elicit such a knee-jerk response from some people. Rather than intelligently debate and discuss, the insults come out and the conversation has to shut down. Nothing to see here, move along weirdo!
Do you really believe that nobody ever does anything bad or tries to keep secrets?
So, those two were probably more inflammatory than other things that fall into the realm of Conspiracy Theory. According to the Journal of American Medical Association though if you believe even proven facts you are a Conspiracy Theorist, which you know means you are an idiot.
Just this year, JAMA conducted a study and found that 50% of people are conspiracy theorists. For example, one question on the survey was whether or not you believe the following: “Health officials know that cell phones cause cancer but are doing nothing to stop it because large corporations won’t let them.” This question has several parts though. Do you believe that cell phones cause cancer? Do you believe that if they do, health officials know about it? If they know about it do you think they are doing nothing? If they are doing nothing, why? Does the combination of all these questions or your belief that together they make a conspiracy change any of the individual facts? Why is this a conspiracy when studies have shown a link between cell phones and cancer?
Another question was do you believe that “Doctors and the government still want to vaccinate children even though they know these vaccines cause autism and other psychological disorders”. Again, if you believe this is true you are a Conspiracy Theorist even though the CDC’s own website states that vaccines like DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis) have as a potential side effect “Permanent Brain Damage”. Brain damage is a pretty substantial psychological disorder isn’t it? The CDC is our government by the way and you can clearly read on the inserts with the vaccine what the potential side effects are.
I could go on and on and I bet there are people out there who will refute anything I say with evidence they pose to the contrary and that is perfectly fine. We should debate things like what is causing cancer, why our Ambassador and Navy Seals were killed? We should ask questions about our President being assassinated. What is wrong with asking questions? We are still asking questions to this day about the pyramids. We still investigate the cosmos, other planets and the human gene. Why is it not OK to stop asking questions when it comes to science but in other realms of life continuing to explore, to dig further or not accept the consensus is a sign of a mental issue?
If you are one of those people who are quick to think any alternate explanation to any event is crazy I would just ask you to stop and consider that maybe you don’t have all the facts either. Maybe what you are being told isn’t the truth. Maybe people lie when they don’t want to get in trouble and yes, maybe there are things that people are trying to keep secret. Being curious about a subject isn’t crazy, blindly believing anything you are told without question sure comes close though.
By Brandon Smith
It is natural for a society to search for explanations and motivations in the wake of a man-made tragedy. It is also somewhat natural for people to be driven by their personal biases when looking for someone or something to blame. In recent years, however, our country has been carefully conditioned to view almost every criminal event from an ideological perspective.
The mainstream media now places far more emphasis on the political affiliations and philosophies of “madmen” than it does on their personal disorders and psychosis. The media’s goal, or mission, if you will, is to associate every dark deed whether real or engineered to the political enemies of the establishment, and to make the actions of each individual the collective shame of an entire group of people.
I could sift through a long list of terror attacks and mass shootings in which the establishment media jumped to the conclusion that the perpetrators were inspired by the beliefs of Constitutional conservatives, “conspiracy theorists”, patriots, etc. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the system is going out of its way to demonize those who question the officially sanctioned story, or the officially sanctioned world view. The circus surrounding the latest shooting of multiple TSA agents at Los Angeles International Airport is a perfect example.
Paul Ciancia, the primary suspect in the shooting, was immediately tied to the Liberty Movement by media outlets and the Southern Poverty Law Center, by notes (which we still have yet to see proof of) that law enforcement claims to have found on his person. The notes allegedly use terms such as “New World Order” and “fiat money”, commonly covered by those of us in the alternative media. The assertion is, of course, that Paul Ciancia is just the beginning, and that most if not all of us involved in the exposure of the globalist agenda are powder kegs just waiting to “go off.” The label often used by the MSM to profile people like Ciancia and marginalize the organizational efforts of liberty based culture is “anti-government.”
The establishment desires to acclimate Americans to the idea that being anti-government is wrong; that it is a despicable philosophy embracing social deviance, aimless violence, isolation and zealotry. Looking beyond the mainstream position, my question is, is it really such a bad thing to be anti-government today?
The terms “anti-government” and “conspiracy theorist” are almost always used in the same paragraph when mainstream media pundits espouse their propaganda. They are nothing more than ad hominem labels designed to play on the presumptions of the general population, manipulating them into dismissing any and all alternative viewpoints before they are ever heard or explained. The establishment and the media are ill-equipped to debate us on fair terms, and understand that they will lose control if Americans are allowed to hear what we have to say in a balanced forum. Therefore, their only fallback is to bury the public in lies so thick they won’t want to listen to us at all.
The Liberty Movement now has the upper hand in the war for information. The exposure of multiple conspiracies in the past several years alone has given immense weight to our stance, and reaffirmed warnings we gave long ago.
When we spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, commissioned by George W. Bush on the dubious claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were an immediate threat to the security of our nation, we were called “liberals” and “traitors.” Today, Bush and Cheney have both openly admitted that no WMD’s were ever present in the region. When we attempted to educate the masses on the widespread surveillance of innocent people by the NSA, some of them laughed. Today, it is common knowledge that all electronic communications are monitored by the Federal government. When we refused to accept the official story behind the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious program, we were called “kooks”. Today, it is common knowledge that the Obama Administration purposely allowed U.S. arms to fall into the hands of Mexican cartels. When we roared over the obvious hand the White House played in the Benghazi attack, we were labeled “racists” and “right wing extremists.” Today, it is common knowledge that the White House ordered military response units to stand down and allow the attack to take place. I could go on and on…
Events that were called “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream yesterday are now historical fact today. Have we ever received an apology for this slander? No, of course not, and we don’t expect one will ever surface. We have already gained something far more important – legitimacy.
And what about Paul Ciancia’s apparent belief in the dangers of the “New World Order” and “fiat money”? Are these “conspiracy theories”, or conspiracy realism? The Liberty Movement didn’t coin the phrase “New World Order”, these political and corporate “luminaries” did:
Is economic collapse really just a fairytale perpetrated by “anti-government extremists” bent on fear mongering and dividing society? Perhaps we should ask Alan Greenspan, who now openly admits that he and the private Federal Reserve knew full well they had helped engineer the housing bubble which eventually imploded during the derivatives collapse of 2008.
Or, why not ask the the White House, which just last month proclaimed that “economic chaos” would result if Republicans did not agree to raise the debt ceiling.
Does this make Barack Obama and the Democratic elite “conspiracy theorists” as well?
It is undeniable that government conspiracies and corporate conspiracies exist, and have caused unquantifiable pain to the American people and the people of the world. Knowing this, is it not natural that many citizens would adopt anti-government views in response? Is it wrong to distrust a criminal individual or a criminal enterprise? Why would it be wrong to distrust a criminal government?
The Purpose Behind The Anti-Government Label
When the establishment mainstream applies the anti-government label, they are hoping to achieve several levels propaganda. Here are just a few:
False Association: By placing the alleged “anti-government” views of violent people in the spotlight, the establishment is asserting that it is the political philosophy, not the individual, that is the problem. They are also asserting that other people who hold similar beliefs are guilty by association. That is to say, the actions of one man now become the trespasses of all those who share his ideology. This tactic is only applied by the media to those on the conservative or constitutional end of the spectrum, as it was with Paul Ciancia. For example, when it was discovered that Arizona mass shooter Jared Loughner was actually a leftist, the MSM did not attempt to tie his actions to liberals in general. Why? Because the left is not a threat to the elitist oligarchy within our government. Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, are.
False Generalization: The term “anti-government” is so broad that, like the term “terrorist”, it can be applied to almost anyone for any reason. The establishment does not want you to distinguish between those who are anti-government for the wrong reasons, and those who are anti-government for the right reasons. Anyone who questions the status quo becomes the enemy regardless of their motives or logic. By demonizing the idea of being anti-government, the establishment manipulates the public into assuming that all government by extension is good, or at least necessary, when the facts actually suggest that most government is neither good or necessary.
False Assertion: The negative connotations surrounding the anti-government stance also suggest that anyone who defends themselves or their principles against government tyranny, whether rationally justified or not, is an evil person. Just look at how Washington D.C. has treated Edward Snowden. Numerous political elites have suggested trying the whistle-blower for treason, or assassinating him outright without due process, even though Snowden’s only crime was to expose the criminal mass surveillance of the American people by the government itself. Rather than apologizing for their corruption, the government would rather destroy anyone who exposes the truth.
False Shame: Does government criminality call for behavior like that allegedly taken by Paul Ciancia? His particular action was not morally honorable or even effective. It helped the establishment’s position instead of hurting it, and was apparently driven more by personal psychological turmoil rather than political affiliation. But, would it be wrong for morally sound and rational Americans facing imminent despotism within government to physically fight back? Would it be wrong to enter into combat with a totalitarian system? The Founding Fathers did, but only after they had exhausted all other avenues, and only after they had broken away from dependence on the system they had sought to fight. Being anti-government does not mean one is a violent and dangerous person. It does mean, though, that there will come a point at which we will not allow government to further erode our freedoms. We will not and should not feel shame in making that stand.
I do not agree with every element of the “anti-government” ethos that exists in our era, but I do see the vast majority of reasons behind it as legitimate. If the establishment really desired to quell the quickly growing anti-government methodology, then they would stop committing Constitutional atrocities and stop giving the public so many causes to hate them. If they continue with their vicious bid to erase civil liberties, dominate the citizenry through fear and intimidation and steal and murder in our name, then our response will inevitably be “anti-government”, and we will inevitably move to end the system as we know it. – Alt Market
You can contact Brandon Smith at: email@example.com
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here.